ROMANS-
Romans 1:1-16 many believe this letter to be Paul's best, I wouldn’t disagree. The
letters of the New Testament do not appear in chronological order, some feel
this to be a huge obstacle in understanding scripture. I think it helps to know
the times when Paul wrote the letters, but this in itself doesn’t prevent us
from learning scripture. Romans is addressed to the church at Rome and is significant in that Paul did not
‘plant this church’. Unlike the other letters of Paul, he is writing to the
believers with whom he had no strong prior relationship. He roots his gospel in
the historical facts of history and scripture. ‘The gospel of God that the
prophets foretold- Jesus of the seed of David who was proved to be the Son of
God by the resurrection’. Make no bones about it, Paul is coming down strong on
the gospel of Jesus Christ and he positions himself well right at the start.
There were ‘other gospels’ [Galatians] that were circulating and at times might
have even outnumbered Paul's message! The Jewish sect from Jerusalem who embraced both Jesus and the law
were very influential in Paul’s day. When Paul combats a legalistic gospel, at
times he is running ‘neck and neck’ with the Judaizers. Paul will make a
foundational statement that will run true thru out the rest of the New
Testament. ‘I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, it is the power of
God unto Salvation to everyone who believes. For in it is the righteousness of
God revealed’. Now, I have hit on this theme before, but it is so fundamental to
the rest of this study that we need to spend some time with it. I always
wondered why so many Evangelicals, and scholars, could not ‘rightly divide’
this biblical doctrine. I am speaking of ‘Righteousness by faith’ as being the
root of all other ‘Salvation’. What I mean is many have confused the doctrine
of ‘the salvation of the righteous’ with the salvation of the sinner. The
reason why the gospel is one of salvation, is because this is the tool that God
has ordained to administer ‘righteousness- justification’ to the believer. When
God ‘saves- delivers’ a sinner from an ‘unjust state of being’ this act can be
called ‘being saved’ [Ephesians 2]. Also thru out the scriptures you have
people who are ‘just- righteous’ who experience ‘continual salvation’ because
of the fact that they are righteous. This doctrine can be called ‘the salvation
of the righteous’. David in Psalms says ‘the righteous cry and the Lord hears
and delivers them out of all their troubles’ ‘The salvation of the righteous is
from the Lord’. Peter speaks of God delivering the ‘just- righteous’ from
wrath. Both Lot and Noah are said to have been
‘saved’ because they were righteous. The whole point here is as we progress
thru Romans Paul will use the term ‘salvation’ and ‘righteousness’. Whenever
[chapter 10] you have a combining of the righteous [believers] calling, crying
out to God for ‘salvation’ it needs to be understood that this does not mean
‘salvation’ in the sense of the initial act of justification. While the two are
closely related, the testimony from scripture does make a distinction. So Paul
shows us that the reason the gospel is Gods power ‘unto salvation’ is because
this is the way God chose to ‘make people just’. Paul will spend a few chapters
[3 and 4] laying the foundation of righteousness by faith. But first he will
argue his case for why all men need to have this righteousness. [ see entry #
704 for more comments on ‘the salvation of the righteous’]
(821)ROMANS
1:17-21 ‘for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against unrighteousness
of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness’. Now, we have already established
the ‘mode’ by which the gospel ‘saves’ us. Once we believe in the gospel, it
immediately, and progressively ‘saves’ us. The immediate act of justification
can be described as ‘getting saved’. But there is also a large amount of
scripture that speaks of ‘continual and future salvation’. Now Paul begins
showing us how this salvation works. He says ‘the wrath of God is revealed
against unrighteousness’ the previous verses showed how the believer is made
righteous. So we are ‘delivered from the wrath to come’ [Thessalonians] ‘saved
by wrath thru his life’ [Romans 5:9] ‘he will appear from heaven the second
time to bring salvation to those who look for him’ [Hebrews] and many other
verses testify of this theme. Paul is showing us one aspect of this ‘ongoing,
future’ salvation by saying ‘see, since Gods wrath is promised to come upon the
unrighteous, once you believe with the heart unto righteousness, you then
become someone who is off the radar screen from wrath’ [John 3- the wrath of
God abides on the unbeliever, but the believer is in a state of ‘no
condemnation’]. This understanding will be important as we get to the later
chapters in Romans. Now I also want to share a somewhat ‘unique’ interpretation
of the following verses ‘that which may be known of God is manifest IN THEM
[some say ‘to them]; for God hath showed it unto them [not necessarily meaning
‘showed it to them from created things’!] For the invisible things of him [his
attributes! Invisible stuff] from the creation of the world [since the
beginning of time, that is since God created all things he has imbedded a
witness of himself into all creation; ‘all creation groans and travails’ Paul
will attribute ‘human like’ characteristics to all creation. In essence all
creation has this testimony and yearning for God in it] are clearly seen [not
with the natural eye, but thru this ‘imbedded testimony of Gods attributes that
he has placed in all creation’] being understood by the things that are made
[not understood by ‘looking at the things that are made’; creation. But
actually being understood ‘by them’] so that they are without excuse’. The
normal way of seeing these verses says ‘God has left a witness of himself thru his
creation. All people are without excuse because they can see his creation and
know he is’. Now, is this concept true? Of course! David says ‘the heavens
declare the glory of God and the firmament SHOWETH his handiwork’. The only
problem is ‘all men can’t see!’ I don’t mean to be trivial here; I want to show
you that if you read this passage like I just taught it, that it basically is
saying ‘since the beginning of Gods creation he has left man without excuse. He
has always revealed his inner attributes to man. The witness of moral law and
conscience is imbedded in the creation. All men ‘hold’ [possess] the ‘truth’
[this inner moral witness] in unrighteousness, therefore they are without
excuse’. I don’t want to be a contrarian simply for the sake of being one. But
if you see what I just told you, this fits in with Paul’s understanding of
salvation. God’s wrath is revealed against all unrighteousness, yet those who
say ‘that’s not fair, God made us this way!’ have no excuse, because God gave
all men [and creation] an inner witness that they could have acted on- ‘when
they knew God, they glorified him not as God but became vain in their
imaginations’. All men have at one time ‘known God’ even those who have never
seen Gods testimony from creation! Therefore they are without excuse.
(822)ROMANS
1:21-32 the scripture says that all creation ‘knew God’. The indictment is
‘there is no excuse’. The previous verses proved that God not only made man,
but that because man was made in Gods image, he therefore had an ‘inner
imprint’ of his maker inside him. Now man chose to ‘change the image of God
into that of animals’. Man could not escape this inert desire to worship, this
thing in him that said ‘there’s more to life than simple flesh’. So he didn’t
just become an atheist [though that’s what they would have you believe] but
they became ‘changers of Gods image’. They came up with an alternative
‘religion’. Scripture says they changed God's image into that of an animal
[idolatry] and worshipped and served the creature more than the creator.
Evolution was Darwin ’s
feeble attempt at ‘changing the image of God into that of animals’. How so?
Modern man was too enlightened [after all we had the enlightenment!] to
actually go out and make an image of an animal and bow to it. Instead he bought
into the idea that he evolved from animals. Scripture says we are made in Gods
image, evolution says ‘we are made in the image of an animal’. Men did not
‘like to retain God in their knowledge’. They had to have some controlling
worldview, they came up with one. Now Romans says God gave them up to become
like that which they chose to worship. Man was designed to worship God, in
seeking and going after God they would become more like him. When man chooses
to empty his mind from the creator, God allows him to fill it with what he
wants. He receives a ‘reprobate mind’. He fixates on the animal instincts that
are a natural result of ‘worshipping four footed beasts’. Now man has no choice
but to be formed into the thing that he worships. Paul is here telling us that
man became immoral as a result of his own choice to eradicate God from his
thoughts. Man received the just recompense of his choice. At the end of the
chapter Paul closes with ‘they know that those who do these things are worthy
of death’. Once again the idea of judgment ‘the wrath of God is revealed from
heaven’. Paul’s summary; Man is unrighteous. God is righteous in punishing man.
Man chose to become like this. The only way to escape an inevitable meeting
with wrath is to ‘become righteous’. This is accomplished thru believing the
gospel. When you believe you become righteous and are no longer on Gods radar
screen for judgment.
(823)ROMANS
2:1-13 ‘Therefore thou art inexcusable, o man, whosoever thou art that
judgest’. Now, this chapter will run with the theme ‘who do you think you are
to judge, you do the things that you say are wrong’. Yikes, this type of
preaching convicts us all. But we need to understand that Paul is saying a
little more [well, a lot more!] than this. Here’s where we need to do some
history. This letter is addressed to believers in Rome , those ‘called to be saints’. Paul is
also giving one of his strongest defenses of his theology, he realizes that a
large Jewish population are also at Rome
[Acts 28]. By the time of this letter the lines are being drawn between ‘Paul’s
gospel’ [the true gospel] and the ‘Jewish law gospel’ coming from the Judaizers
out of Jerusalem .
The main fight is over whether or not Gentile believers need to be circumcised
and come under the law in order to ‘be saved’ [Acts 15]. Now the mentality of
the Jewish mind was ‘we have been given Gods precepts [true] and because we are
the inheritors of the law and moral standards of God, this puts us in a better
class than the Gentiles’ [false]. In essence the law was supposed to reveal
mans sin to himself, it was to show us our need for a Savior. But in the
legalistic mind it created enmity between Jew and Gentile. This is what it
means when Paul writes the Ephesian letter and says ‘the middle wall of
partition has been removed in Christ’ this ‘middle wall’ is referring to the
law and how it divided Jew and Gentile. So here Paul is saying ‘you Jews who
are trusting in the fact that you were the recipients of the law, who use the
law as a measuring rod to justify yourselves. This measuring rod was actually
given to show you your sin. Did it never occur to you that the very fact that
the ‘rod’ says “don’t commit adultery, don’t steal” that these things are
actually sins that you yourselves do [the legalistic Jews]. And yet the very
rule [law] of God that you are using to justify yourselves, this law you
actually break!’ Now you are beginning to see the context. And not only were
they breaking the law, but at the same time they were saying to Paul's Gentile
churches ‘unless you get circumcised, you are not accepted with God’. The
Gentile believers were actually born of God and stopped doing the things that
the law commanded them not to do. They were ‘fulfilling the law by nature’. So
Paul is really rebuking this hypocritical mindset that said to the Gentile
believers that they weren’t saved. And at the same time the ‘judgers of the
law’ were actually breaking the law, while the Gentle converts were keeping it
by nature! In this context verse one means a lot. Now to an important verse
‘for not the hearers of the law are just before God, BUT THE DOERS OF THE LAW
SHALL BE JUSTIFIED’. Just the fact that this statement is made by Paul in this
letter is amazing. Paul will spend lots of time in this letter saying ‘those
who try and become justified by keeping the law are missing it’. He will go
over and over again stating that trying to become righteous by works and law
keeping are futile. Yet here he says ‘the doers of the law SHALL BE JUSTIFIED,
not the hearers’. Keep in context what I just showed in the beginning of the
chapter. The New Testament has a theme that I have hit on before [read the
Hebrews 11 commentary on this site]. The theme is ‘men are justified’ [declared
legally righteous] by faith. This faith also ‘sanctifies’ [which can also be
called ‘justified’ a sort of progressive justification. James uses this in his
letter. Paul says in Galatians ‘having begun in the Spirit [legal
justification] are you now made perfect by the flesh’ [law keeping]. Now the
New Testament teaches that God wants people to actually ‘be righteous’. Johns 1st
epistle uses this as the marker of whether or not you are a child of God ‘by
this we know… those that do what is righteous are born of God, those that do
evil are not’. In Jesus judgment scenarios ‘those that have DONE good are
raised to life, those that have done evil to damnation’. So Paul in essence is
saying ‘God ‘justifies’ [using the term in a ongoing- futuristic sense] the
righteous, not the ones who only hear the law [the Jewish legalists] but those
who by nature do it’ [Paul’s gentile converts]. Got it? This distinction is
very important. One of the historic reasons why the Protestant and Catholic
churches are divided is over this issue. The Catholic Pope [Leo] who initially
condemned Luther did so on grounds like this. The Pope who succeeded Leo re-read
all of Luther’s documents, in an honest effort to bridge the schism, and came
to the same conclusion. Now I like Luther and side with him more so than the
Pope, but one of the problems was some of Luther’s writings seemed to say
‘Justification is solely by faith [true] therefore sin hardily’ [false]. Now
Luther didn’t intend to come off this way, but that’s the way it sounded. So
the Catholic doctrine fell more on the side of ‘Gods grace makes you righteous,
God cant declare people actually righteous until they actually are righteous’
this is called the ‘Legal fiction’ argument. They said Luther’s idea was a
‘legal fiction’. In essence some of what the Catholic scholars were saying was
correct. Now God does declare us righteous at the moment of belief, before we
actually ‘become totally righteous in practice’. But the error of the Catholic
argument saying ‘God cant declare you righteous until you are’ was missing the
point. When God says ‘you are righteous’ then you are! God doesn’t lie. But I
understand the Catholic point. I think Paul understood it too. In this chapter
Paul says ‘not the hearers of the law, but the doers shall be justified’.
(824)ROMANS
2:14- 3:18- Paul says ‘you are called a Jew and are confident that you are a
teacher and an instructor of the law’. Read my Hebrews commentary, chapters 5
and 6. It is interesting that Paul understood the teaching role that the Jewish
nation was to play among the Gentile nations. In Jesus parables he also hits on
these themes. Hebrews says ‘when the time has come [the appointed time of
Messiah- Galatians 4] that you ought to be teachers, you have need to be taught
the first principles again’. Here Paul tells them they are proud to be the
‘possessors’ of the Old Testament, yet thru their disobedience to it the name
of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles [ouch!] Paul fully acknowledges the
privileged role that Israel
had, he himself was brought up with this ‘elitist/intellectual’ mindset. But
here Paul rebukes them for not fully living up to the law. ‘Well brother, how
could they live up to it? Paul himself says that this is impossible.’ If they
carried thru with the receiving of Messiah, which their law spoke and testified
of, then truly they would have been fulfilling the law as new creatures in
Christ. In essence their indictment is ‘you never fully followed thru with your
own law’! Now Paul will flatly say that circumcision and being the guardians of
the law profit nothing. That the ‘circumcision of the heart’ is what matters.
He says if the gentiles, who have no historical attachment to the law, if they
do by nature the things in the law then they are ‘spiritually circumcised’ [set
apart unto God]. But if the circumcised do not obey the law and character of
God [thru the new birth] then it profits nothing. I want to note the strong
disconnect between the way Paul speaks about natural Israel and her heritage, and how
some in the American church present her. Paul, who himself is a Jew, makes it
very clear that Israel
is in a state of ‘danger’ by not receiving Messiah. Though he will admit their
special place and role in history, yet he refuses to exalt her in her natural
‘state’ [of being]. Now Israel ’s
response to Paul [which by the way Paul interjects himself. I want to make a
note here. Paul will give ‘both sides’ of the argument in his letters. He will
say things like ‘and you will say to me such and such’. He actually try’s to
add both sides of the conversation in his letters. Recently there has been some
discussion on whether or not we can really understand the New Testament without
fully knowing all the background and history of the letters. Some have said
just knowing the letters are like
hearing only one side of a phone conversation. To be honest this isn’t really
true. The writers of the letters and the gospels lived in an ‘oral culture’.
This is why Paul himself gives instructions on his letters being read- as
opposed to saying ‘pass the letters around for everyone to personally read’.
The point is we can understand a whole bunch of scripture just by reading it!]
Now Israel
asks ‘what good is the whole thing, why even have Jews or circumcision or any
history with God at all’? Paul realizes that his whole argument for law and
circumcision meaning nothing without a changed heart, that some would respond back
like this. He in turn says ‘the law and all the history of Israel with God
were very important! It was Gods way of getting his prophetic word [oracles] to
man’. In essence God chose to ‘start a conversation’ with Abraham and extend it
forward to his children. Over a long history of God interacting with Israel , God
would speak thru prophets and ‘wise men’ and these prophetic words were being
recorded [meticulously by the way!]. God would reveal himself and his purpose
of Messiah thru these writings that came from this relationship [though rocky!]
that he had with Israel .
Now Paul will say ‘does their unbelief negate Gods promise’? No! Let God be
true and every man be a liar. The fact that Israel as a nation were ‘not
believing’ in their Messiah, didn’t effect the actual power of the Messiah to
be believed on among the Gentile nations. A couple of things here;
dispensational theology teaches that the Kingdom of God
has been postponed until Christ’s return. I think this contradicts Paul's
argument. Paul said Israel ’s
unbelief could not negate the full purpose of God. The fact that Jesus rose
from the dead and is presently seated at God’s right hand proves this. Also
Paul will teach later in this letter that the actual reason why salvation has
gone out to the gentiles is because Israel rejected Messiah. In essence
Israel ’s
unbelief could not negate what God purposed to do all along.
(825)ROMANS
3:19-31 ‘Now we know that what things the law says, it says to those who are
under the law… that every mouth may be stopped and all the world becomes guilty
before God’. One of the questions that arise as a response to Paul’s gospel is
‘if the law cannot make us righteous, then why even have it’? Paul will
consistently teach the concept that Gods intention for the law was simply to
reveal mans sin to him. Man would have this ‘form’ of the law written on stone
tablets and as he tried to live up to God’s standards he would come to the
proper diagnosis that all men are sinners. This diagnosis would then lead him
to a place of faith in Jesus. After he believes in Jesus he then fulfills the
law naturally, out of having a new nature ‘yea, we establish the law’ [3:31 ]. I have found it interesting
over the years to teach people this. To explain to sincere people, church
goers. To say ‘did you know the bible says that no man can be saved by trying
to obey Gods Ten Commandments’? I will always explain that this doesn't mean
that God wants us to break them! But when we come to the Cross we by nature
keep them. These verses lay down the foundation of ‘justification by faith’. He
that believes is righteous. To declare Jesus righteousness for the remission of
sins that are past. Having faith ‘in His Blood’. Both Jews and Gentiles need to
be made righteous thru faith/belief in Jesus. I want to establish this fact in
your mind. Paul without a doubt describes this experience as being ‘justified
by faith’. This is the same as saying ‘believing with the heart unto
righteousness’. Later on [chapter 10] this needs to be understood when parsing
the verses that say ‘with the heart a man believes unto righteousness, and with
the mouth confession is made unto salvation’ many are confused about this, to
get it right you need to see that Paul spends much time early on establishing
the fact that ‘those who believe unto righteousness’ are justified by faith
already!
(826)ROMANS
4: 1-12 Now, Paul will use one of his
most frequent arguments to prove that all men, both Jews and Gentiles, need to
be justified by faith and not ‘by works’. The most famous singular figure that
natural Israel
looked to as the ‘identifier’ of them being a special people was ‘Father
Abraham’. Paul does a masterful job at showing how Abraham was indeed justified
by faith and not by works. The ‘work’ of circumcision came before the law. It
would later become synonymous with law keeping [Ten Commandments] and Paul can
certainly use it here as implying ‘the whole law’. But to be accurate this work
of circumcision was a national identifying factor that Israel looked
to as saying ‘we are better than you [Gentiles]’. Paul is showing Israel that God
in fact ‘made Abraham righteous’ before he circumcised him! [Gen. 15] And the
sign of this righteousness was circumcision. This meaning that Abrahams faith
in Gods promise [a purely ‘passive’ act! This is very important to see. Later
on as we deal with the famous ‘conversion texts’ we need to keep this in mind]
justified him without respect to the law. God simply took Abraham outside and
said ‘look at the stars, your children will be this abundant’ and Abraham
simply believed this promise to be true. Much like the passive belief of
Cornelius house at their conversion [Acts 10]. The simple belief in the promise
of Jesus justifies the sinner! Now this fact of Abraham believing and being
made righteous, before being circumcised, is proof [according to Paul] that
Abraham is the father of ‘many nations’ not just natural Israel . All
ethnic groups who HAVE THE SAME FAITH AS ABRAHAM are qualified to be ‘sons of
Abraham/ heirs of God’. The fact that Abraham carried this justification along
with him as he became circumcised, shows that all Jewish people as well can
partake of this ‘righteousness by faith’ if they have the same faith as Abraham
had. Jesus did say ‘Abraham rejoiced to see my day’[ John’s gospel]. In Gods promise
to Abraham of a future dynasty of children, this included the promised Messiah.
So indirectly Abraham’s belief in the promise of being the father of ‘many
nations’ included belief in the coming Messiah. So according to Paul, all
ethnic groups who have faith in Jesus are justified/made righteous. The very
example Israel
used to justify ‘ethnic/national pride’ [Father Abraham] was taught in a way
that showed the truth of the gospel and how God is no respecter of persons.
(827)ROMANS
4:13-14 ‘Now the promise that Abraham would become the inheritor of the world
was not going to be fulfilled thru the law [natural Israel ] but thru faith [all who
believe, both Jew and Gentile]’. I have spoken on this before [see note at
bottom] and will hit on it a little now. The historic church can be defined for
the most part as ‘a-millennial’, that is they interpreted the parables on the Kingdom of God and the promise of ‘inheriting the
world [which includes the Promised Land]’ as being fulfilled thru the church.
That Jesus established Gods kingdom and the church basically fulfills these
promises by expanding Christ’s ‘rule’ thru the earth. Some historians saw the 4th
century ‘marriage’ of Rome
and Christianity as a fulfillment of this. During the 19th and 20th
century you had the rise of Dispensationalism, a ‘new/different’ way of
interpreting these land promises. Many good men showed the reality of Christ’s
literal coming and pointed to a future time where Jesus literally sits on a
throne in Jerusalem
and rules all nations. These brothers are called ‘Pre-millennial’, they believe
that Jesus comes back first [pre] and then establishes his ‘millennial rule’ on
earth. The Premillennialists would see the Amillennialists as ‘replacement
theologians’. They said that these brothers were taking the actual promises
that God made to Israel
and ‘replacing’ Israel
with the church. In essence they accused the Amillennialists of spiritualizing
the promises to Israel
and saying the church would be the recipients of the promises. Now, both sides
have truth to them, I personally believe the Amillennialists have a lot more
truth! But I do see some of the good points that the Premillenialists made. I
want you to simply read these verses [Romans 4:13 -14, Galatians 3:18 ]
and see for yourself how Paul does teach the reality that the promises to
Abraham are to be fulfilled thru the church [spiritual Israel ]. This
does not mean that there is no future physical return of Jesus. But the body of
scripture leans heavily on the Amillinnialists side. [see entry 703] NOTE- To
be fair, some historic thinkers held to the Premillennial position. The
majority were Amillennial.
(828)ROMANS
4:15-25 ‘For the law worketh wrath, for where there is no law there is no
transgression’. I simply want to touch on the concept of ‘wrath’ being a very
real part of judgment. One of the ways the gospel ‘saves us’ is by promising a
future [and present!] deliverance from wrath. While death ‘reigned’ before the
law was given, it wasn’t until the law where you had a clear picture of transgression
and atonement. We will deal with this later in Romans. Now Paul once again hits
on the theme of Abraham being the ‘spiritual father’ of many nations [all who
believe] and how the promises of God to Abraham were to be fulfilled thru this
‘new race of people’ [the church]. Paul is careful to not demean Israel ; he
couches his terms in a way that says ‘God will fulfill these things thru the
circumcision who believes [Jews] and the un-circumcision who believe’
[Gentiles]. I want to stress the very plain language Paul uses to show us that
we should not be seeing Gods ‘covenant promises’ thru a natural lens.
Christians need to be careful when they support [exalt!] natural Israel in a way
that the New Testament doesn’t do. ‘To the end that the promise might be sure
to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which
is the faith of Abraham’. Now Paul tells us that when God made promises to
Abraham that Abraham believed against hope. When all things looked really bad,
he still believed. When he was 100 years old and Sarah around 90, he held to
the promise [read my commentaries on Genesis 15-18 and Hebrews 11] and
therefore God imputed righteousness to him. How closely are you paying
attention to Paul’s free use of Abraham and Genesis? If you carefully read this
chapter you see Paul ‘intermingle’ the story of Abraham being ‘made righteous
upon initial belief’ [Gen. 15] and the later story of Sarah having Isaac [Gen.
17]. I think Paul was simply using the description of Abrahams faith, as seen
in the Gen. 17 [and 22!] accounts of his life, to show the type of faith he
initially ‘exercised’ [I don’t like using this term to be honest. God actually
imputes faith to the believer at the initial act of regeneration]. The
important chapters from Genesis that we all need to have a ‘working knowledge’
of are Chapters 12 [the initial promise], 15 [the oft mentioned ‘imputed
righteousness’ verse], 17 [the receiving of the promised seed- Isaac], and 22
[the ultimate act of obedience that Abraham showed in offering up Isaac. This
will be described in James epistle as ‘righteousness being fulfilled’. James,
who is concerned about ‘works’, will say that when Abraham offered Isaac he was
fulfilling the ‘imputed righteousness’ that God gave him earlier. James
actually describes this as ‘being justified by works’{James 2:21 } and James says ‘the scripture
was fulfilled that saith Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for
righteousness’… ‘see how that by works a man is justified and not by faith
only’. The classic view taken by many confuses the ‘justified’ part with the
initial act of justification that Paul centers on. James uses ‘see how he was
justified by works’ in a future ‘judicial decree’ sense; that is God having the
ongoing ‘freedom’ to continually say ‘good job son, you did well’. The word
justification is used in a fluid sense much like salvation. Christians need to
be more ‘secure’ in their own assurance to be able to see these truths. When we
approach all these seemingly ‘difficult passages’ in a defensive mode, then we
never arrive at the actual meaning]. When we see the overall work of God in
Abraham’s life we see the purpose of God in ‘declaring people just’ [initially
‘getting saved’]. The purpose is for them to eventually ‘act just’ [obey!]
‘Jesus was delivered for our offenses and raised again for our justification’
thank God that this process is dependant on the work of the Cross! [see # 758]
(829)Romans
5:1-9 ‘Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God thru out Lord
Jesus Christ’. There are certain benefits ‘results’ of being ‘made righteous by
faith’, peace being one of them. Paul goes on and says we glory in hope and
also trials, because we realize that thru the difficulties we gain experience
and patience. Things that are needed for the journey, we can’t substitute
talent and motivation and ‘success principles’ for them. We need maturity and
God produces it this way. Those who teach otherwise have a ‘self inflicted
wound’ their teachings are very immature! That is there was a ‘strain’ of
teaching in the church that said ‘we don’t learn thru difficulty and suffering,
we learn only thru Gods word!’ [that is reading it]. Those who grasped onto this false idea have
produced some of the most unbalanced teaching in the church, stuff that even
the younger generation is saying ‘what in the heck are these guys
preaching’? If you by pass the difficult
road, you will be shallow. Now Paul says ‘God commended his love toward us,
that when we were sinners Christ died for us’ ‘being now justified by his
death, we shall be saved thru his life’ [saved from wrath thru him]. Once again
this theme pops up; ‘since we are justified, made righteous by believing with
the heart, we shall be saved [continual, future deliverance] from wrath thru him’.
I don’t know if you ever realized what a major theme this is in Romans? The
ongoing, future ‘being saved’ is a result of ‘being made righteous’. Later on
in chapter 10, when we read that the righteous call for salvation, we need to
understand this context. Remember, when the two are linked together in the same
verse, it is not saying ‘saved’ in the sense of some sinner’s prayer. It is
speaking of the ongoing, promised deliverance [from many things, not just
wrath!] to the ‘justified caller’. We have access ‘by faith into this grace
wherein we stand’. Wow! That's some good stuff, Jesus ever lives so that those
who come to him are ‘being saved’ to the uttermost. This grace we are in is
available to us all of the time, are we availing ourselves of it?
(830)ROMANS
5:10-21 ‘For if, when we were enemies of God, we were reconciled to him by the
death of his Son… much more we shall be saved by his life’. Now, some have
‘divided’ the role of Jesus death and resurrection in salvation. I heard a
radio preacher teach that all the people who think they are ‘saved’ because
Jesus died for them were deceived. He used this verse to say they need to
believe in his ‘life’ [resurrection] to ‘be saved by his life’. Well I get the
point, but he was missing the meaning of the verse. Why? Because once again we
see ‘saved’ as initially ‘getting saved’ while here it is in a continual sense.
Paul is saying ‘if God reconciled us [justification] while we were deadly
enemies, how much more shall the actual ministry and life of Jesus at Gods right
hand do for us!’ The New Testament teachers that we have actually entered into
an eternal covenant with God thru his Son. Jesus ‘ever lives’ to make
intercession for us [Hebrews]. Therefore he is able to ‘save them to the
uttermost that come unto God by him’. The bible teaches an ongoing ‘saving’
relationship that believers have with the Messiah. This ‘relationship’ would
not be possible if he were dead. Now we ‘joy in God thru Jesus Christ from whom
we have received the atonement’ good stuff! Isaiah says God will meet with
those who ‘rejoice and do what is right’. We have both of these ‘abilities’
because of the atonement. The rest of the chapter teaches the Pauline doctrine
of original sin. That because Adam sinned, death and sin passed to all men. So
likewise the ‘righteousness’ of one man [Jesus- the last Adam] has passed upon
all men [those who receive of the abundance of grace and the gift of life].
This is an interesting angle that Paul uses to teach redemption. He shows the
reality that there are only 2 ‘federal heads’ of mankind. You are either in the
first or last Adam. The ‘righteous act’ is speaking of the Cross [Philippians
says Jesus was ‘obedient unto death’. The singular act of obedience that allows
this righteousness to pass to all who believe is the Cross. Some have
misunderstood this chapter to teach that the obedient life of Christ, his
sinless life, saves us. I feel this is a wrong reading of the chapter. The
sinless life of Jesus, pre Cross, made him the true candidate to be the substitute
for man. He was able to die in our place [obedience unto death] because he was
the sinless Son of God. We are now ‘saved by his life’ because he ever lives to
make intercession for us]. All who believe in Jesus can now trace their lineage
to the ‘last Adam’ [Jesus] and be free from ‘original sin’.
(831)ROMANS
6- Lets talk about baptism. To start off I believe that the baptism spoken
about in this chapter is primarily referring to ‘the baptism of the Spirit’,
that is the work of the Holy Sprit placing a believer in the Body of Christ.
The Catholic and Orthodox [and Reformed!] brothers believe that Paul is
speaking about water baptism. The MAJORITY VIEW of Christians today believe
this chapter is referring to water baptism. Why? First, the text itself does not
indicate either way. You could take this baptism and see it either way! You are
not a heretic if you believe in it referring to Spirit or water. You are not a
heretic if you believe in Paedo baptism [infant baptism]. ‘What are you saying?
Now you lost me.’ Infant baptism developed as a Christian rite over the course
of church history. The church struggled with how to ‘dedicate’ new babies to
Christ. Though the scriptures give no examples of infant baptism, some felt
that the reason was because the scriptures primarily show us the conversion of
the first century believers. There really aren’t a whole lot of stories of
‘generations’ of believers passing on the faith to other generations. So some
felt that the idea of dedicating babies to the Lord through infant baptism was
all right. The examples they used were the circumcision of babies in the Old
Testament. Infants were circumcised [a rite that placed you under the terms of
the Old Covenant] though they weren’t old enough to really understand what they
were doing! This example was carried over into the Christian church and applied
to infant baptism. Now, I do not believe in infant baptism. But I can certainly
understand this line of reasoning. As Christian theology developed thru the
early centuries, particularly thru the patristic period, you had very
intellectual scholars grapple with many different themes and ideas. Some that
we just studied in chapter 5. Some theologians came to see infant baptism as
dealing with original sin. They applied the concept of infant baptism as a rite
that washes away original sin. The church did not teach that this meant you did
not have to later believe and follow Christ. They simply developed a way of
seeing baptism as ‘sanctifying’ the new members of Christian households. This
basic belief made it all the way to the Reformation. The Reformers themselves
still practiced infant baptism. It was the Anabaptists [re-baptizers] who saw
the truth of adult baptism and suffered for it, at the hands of the reformers!
Ulrich Zwingli, the Swiss reformer, would have them drowned for their belief.
Some Protestants stuck with the infant rite, while others [the Restorationists]
would reject it. Today most Evangelicals do not practice infant baptism, the
majority of Christians world wide do. Now, the reason I did a little history is
because Evangelicals [of which I am one] have a tendency to simply look at
other believers who practice this rite as ‘deceived’. Many are unaware of the
history I just showed you. The reasons the historic church developed this
doctrine are not heretical! They used scripture and tradition to pass it down
to future generations. I do not believe or practice infant baptism, many good
believers do.
(832)ROMANS
6: 1-11 ‘shall we continue to sin, so grace may abound? God forbid! How shall
we, who are dead to sin, live any longer therein?’ Now begins the ‘actual part’
the result, if you will, of being ‘made righteous by faith’. One of the main
accusations against Paul, by the Jewish believers, was that he taught ‘sin a lot,
because you are no longer under the law’. Paul spends time defending himself
against this accusation thru out the New Testament. Here Paul teaches that the
believer has been joined unto Christ [baptized, immersed into him] and this
‘joining’ identifies him with Christ’s death. So how can ‘we, who are dead to
sin, live any longer in sin’? Paul’s argument for righteous living comes from
the fact that we have died with Christ unto sin. ‘We have died with him, and we
have also been raised with him to new life’. In Ephesians chapter 2, Paul says
we who were dead in sins have been made alive in Christ. Now, we live a new
life, free from sin [practically speaking- not absolute sinless-ness!] because
we are identified with Jesus in his new life, we are ‘alive with and in him’.
‘Since we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be
also in the likeness of his resurrection’! Jesus died once, and now he lives
forever unto God ‘likewise count yourselves dead indeed unto sin, but alive
unto God thru Jesus Christ our Lord’. Paul’s basis for the transformed life is
Grace and being ‘in him’. Paul does not appeal to the law to try and effect
holiness in the believer, he appeals to Christ ‘in him you have died to
legalistic practices, trying to earn salvation and acceptance; and now because
of this new position [placement] you too have died to the old man [lifestyle]
and are alive unto God’. Paul obviously did not teach ‘sin hardily’ to the
contrary he taught ‘live unto God’.
(834)Romans 6:12-23 ‘Let not sin therefore rule in your mortal
body’ if we have died with Jesus, we are ‘dead with him to sin’. If we are
risen with Jesus ‘we are alive unto God thru him’ for this reason don’t sin!
Paul makes sure his readers understand him, he in no way was teaching a sinful
gospel. He encourages the believers to renew their minds to this truth. ‘For
sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under the law, but under
grace’ Paul clearly saw the dangers of legalism [living under strict ‘do this,
don’t do this’ guidelines] he saw that the law actually quickens the fleshly
nature and brings to the surface mans sin. Now, because we are under grace,
does this mean we get to keep on sinning? ‘God forbid!’ Paul launches into the
explanation of sin and bondage. Remember, sin was in the world before the law.
Men were dying ever since Adam sinned. So for Paul, this means even though we
are not under the restraints of law, yet the reality of sin, bondage and
punishment still exist. Paul says ‘if you yield to sin and allow it to rule
you, you will become its slave’. There will be a penalty and price to pay ‘the
wages of sin is death’. But because you are identified with Jesus ‘sin shall
not have dominion over you… you have been made free from sin’. Paul teaches the
victorious Christian life. He does not deny the struggle [next chapter!] but he
shows the reality of redemption. He obviously never taught the concept of ‘sin
more, so grace can abound’. He understood the dangers of preaching ‘we are not
under the law’ but he also understood the reality of ‘being under grace’ he
figured it was worth the risk of being misunderstood if he could truly imbed
the gospel into the believing community.
(835)ROMANS 7:1-4 Paul uses the
analogy of a married woman ‘don’t you know that the law has dominion over a
person as long as he is alive’? If a married woman leaves her husband and
marries another man she is guilty of breaking the law of adultery. Now, if her
husband dies, she is free to marry another man. The act that freed her from sin
and guilt was death! Every thing else in the scenario stayed the same. She
still married another, she still consummated the new marriage. But because her
first husband died, she has no guilt. I always loved this analogy. For years I
wondered why these themes in scripture are for the most part not ‘imbedded’ in
the collective psyche of the people of God. We have spent so much time ‘proof
texting’ the verses on success and wealth, that we have overlooked the really
good stuff! Now Paul teaches that we have been made free from the law by the
‘death of our husband’ [Jesus] so we can ‘re-marry’. Who do we marry? Christ!
He has not only died to free us from the law, he also rose from the dead to
become our ‘husband’ [we are called the bride of Christ]. Paul connects the
death and resurrection of Jesus in this analogy. Both are needed for the true
gospel to be preached [1st Corinthians 15]. Notice how in this
passage Paul emphasizes ‘the death of Christ’s body’. The New Testament doesn’t
always make this distinction, but here it does. In the early centuries of
Christianity you had various debates over the nature and ‘substance’ of God and
Christ. The church hammered out various decrees and creeds that would become
the Orthodoxy of the day. Many of these are what you would call the ‘Ecumenical
councils’. These are the early councils [many centuries!] that both the eastern
[Orthodox church] and western [Catholic] churches would all accept. Some feel
that the early church fathers and Latin theologians [Tertullian, Augustine and
others] had too much prior influence from philosophy and the ‘forensic’
thinking of their time. They had a tendency to describe things in highly
technical ways. Ways that were prominent in the legal and philosophical
thinking of the West. Some of the eastern thinkers [Origen] had more of a Greek
‘flavor’ to their theologizing [Alexandria, named after Alexander the great,
was a city of philosophy many years prior to Christ. This city was at one time
the center of thinking in the East. That’s why Paul would face the thinkers at
Athens, they had a history in the east of Greek philosophy]. Well any way the
result was highly technical debates over the nature of God and Christ. The
historic church would finally decree that Christ had 2 natures, Human and
Divine. And that at the Cross the ‘humanity of Jesus’ died, but his ‘Deity’ did
not. I think Paul agreed by saying ‘we are free from the law by the death of
Christ’s Body’ here Paul distinguishes between the physical death of Jesus and
his Deity. Note- actually, Augustine would be in the same school as Origen.
Alexandrian.
(836)ROMANS 7: 5-13 ‘But now we
are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we
should serve in newness of the Spirit, not in the oldness of the letter’. This
is such a powerful statement! WE ARE DELIVERED FROM THE LAW, surely Paul must
mean ‘the fleshly law [carnal nature] in our members’? No, he means ‘the law’,
the actual moral code that was contained in the Ten Commandments. He writes to
the Colossians ‘Jesus took the handwriting of ordinances that were against us
[the real law, not the sinful nature!] and nailed it to his Cross’. He tells
the Ephesians ‘the middle wall of partition [law] has come down in Christ’. I
know it’s easy to develop ideas that justify this radical grace concept in our
minds, it’s just part of mans nature to want to be able to do something,
contribute some way to our salvation. ‘Surely the law helps me stay in line’?
No it doesn’t! You are 'dead to the law by the Body of Christ’. We now live and
are regulated by the ‘Spirit of life in Christ Jesus’. It is the fact that we
have been raised to life in Christ that frees us, not the law. Paul goes on and
explains that there was a time when ‘he was alive without the law’ but when the
commandment came ‘sin revived, and I died’. Paul was a strict Pharisee, the
further he advanced in law, the more he found himself to be ‘exceeding sinful’.
The more he learned, the worse he got! It’s sort of a catch 22, you see and
hear the ‘do not do this’ portions of law, and it stirs up the sinful nature to
‘do it’. Now Paul recaps an earlier theme of the law serving the function of
revealing sin to man. He defends the law by saying ‘was that which is good
[law] death unto me’? No, but the law simply ‘awakened’ the sin that was always
there, hiding under the covers. It brought to a head the ‘disease’. The law
revealed the underlying problem of sin, and made it ‘exceeding sinful’. The law
is good, we are bad! [apart from Christ and the Spirit of life].
(837)ROMANS 7:14-25 Paul now
shows us the reality of Gods law and its effect on man. ‘When I do something
that I DON’T WANT TO DO, then I consent unto the law that it is good’. Did you
ever think of this? The fact that you [or even the atheist!] have done things
that ‘you don’t want to do’ proves the existence of God and natural law [which
the 10 commandments were only a glimpse, they reveal a small part of Gods
character and nature]. So if you, or anybody else, have ever struggled with ‘I
am doing something that I hate’. Then why do it? Or better, why hate it? You
yourself are an actual living testimony of ‘the law of God’. Your own
conscience testifies that there are
‘good things’ and ‘bad things’. You also testify of the fact of sin ‘why
do you keep doing the bad things’? Alas, that thing called ‘sin’ does exist!
Paul shows us that the experience of every human member on the planet testifies
to both the righteousness of God and the sinfulness of man. Freud [the father
of modern Psychology] saw this war rage in the psyche of man, he came up with
an idea that we need to ‘free man’ from this inner moral struggle. He espoused
the idea that in mans ‘head’ he has this preconceived image of ‘God’ and right
or wrong. Being Freud was a child of the Enlightenment, as well as a student of
Existentialism [though the Father of Existentialism was a Christian, the Danish
theologian/ philosopher Soren Kierkegaard] he taught that if we could just
eliminate this ‘God idea’ and ‘church moral code’ from mans mind, then all
would be well! Geez, I could hardly think of a more destructive thing than to
tell man ‘if it feels right, do it’! Paul taught ‘if you can’t stop doing
something that ‘feels right’ then you are sinning!’[if that which ‘feels right’
is making you miserable!] And the very fact that you can’t escape the guilt,
proves that God exists and that his law is this unstoppable force that invades
all human consciences. Paul knew the struggle, he testifies thru out scripture
that he tried to become right with God over and over again, but the ‘law of
sin’ [the sinful nature. Here ‘law’ is speaking of the ‘principle of sin’ and
the fleshly nature] prevented him from keeping the ‘law of God’ [doing what’s
right], he then found the ‘righteousness of God that comes thru faith in Christ’.
Paul ends the chapter ‘O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the
body of this death’? ‘I thank God thru Jesus Christ my Lord’. Paul found the
answer, his name was Jesus.
(839)ROMAN 8:1-4 ‘There is
therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not
after the flesh [sinful nature] but after the Spirit [new nature]’. Now, having
proved the reality of sin and guilt [chapter 7] Paul teaches that those who
‘are in Christ’ are free from condemnation. Why? Because they ‘walk according
to the Spirit’ the ‘righteousness of the law is being fulfilled in them’.
Having no condemnation isn’t simply a ‘legal function’ of declared
righteousness, and Paul didn’t teach it that way! Paul is saying ‘all those who
have believed in Jesus and have been legally justified [earlier arguments in
chapters 3-4] are now walking [actually acting out] this new nature. Therefore
[because you no longer walk according to the flesh] there is no condemnation’!
This argument helps bridge the gap between Catholic and Protestant theology,
part of the reason for the ongoing schism is over this understanding. After the
Reformation the Catholic Church had a Counter Reformation council, the council
of Trent. They dealt with a lot of the abuses of the Catholic Church, things
that many Catholic leaders were complaining about before the Reformation. They
did deal will some issues and reformed somewhat. To the dismay of the more
‘reform minded’ Catholics [with Protestant leanings] they still came down
strong on most pre reform doctrines. This made it next to impossible for the
schism to be healed. But one area of disagreement was over ‘legal’ versus
‘actual/experiential’ justification. The Catholic position was ‘God can’t
declare/say a person is justified until they actually are’ [experientially].
The Protestant side [Luther] said ‘God does justify [legal declaration] a
person by faith alone’. Like I taught before, both of these are true. The
Catholic view of ‘justification’ is looking ahead towards a future reality [The
same way James speaks of justification in a future sense- He uses the example
from Genesis 22, when Abraham does a righteous act] while the Protestant view
is focusing on the initial legal act of justification [Genesis 15]. Here Paul
agrees with both views, he says ‘those who walk after the Spirit [actually
living the changed life] have no condemnation’.
(840)ROMANS 8:5-13 Paul will teach
the impossibility of the ‘carnal minds’ ability to submit to Gods law. Those
who are ‘in the flesh’ [the unregenerate nature- not simply ‘in the body’. We
will get into these distinctions in a minute] can’t submit to God. Society
spends so much time and effort trying to get the ‘lost man’ to do what's right.
The prohibition movement [outlawing liquor], the increase in the severity of
punishment for crimes dealing with drugs. Making the child kidnappers crime
punishable by death. While all these laws are necessary and good [though some
debate the wisdom of the kidnapper one, they think the kidnapper might just go ahead
and kill the victim if the same punishment applies to both crimes] they have
little effect on getting ‘the carnal man to submit’. Paul also says ‘if the
Spirit of him who raised up Christ from the dead dwells in you, then he that
raised up Christ from the dead shall quicken [make alive] your mortal bodies by
his Spirit that dwells in you’. Let’s do a little teaching here. Most
commentators see this as speaking of the promise of the resurrection ‘your
mortal bodies’. I see this more in line with the context of chapter 7. The
discussion of ‘mortal bodies’ [your actual body, the flesh- which is different
than ‘the fleshly nature’ which refers to the sinful nature] speaks of your
actual life now ‘let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies’. Also in verse
13 of this chapter the same theme is seen ‘if ye thru the Spirit mortify the
deeds of the body ye shall live’. I believe Paul is primarily saying ‘if you
are in the Spirit [born of God] the Spirit of life will make alive your
physical life in such a way that you will glorify God in your body and spirit,
which are Gods’ [Corinthians]. Chapter 12 says your bodies are living
sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God. Now later on in this chapter [8] we do
see the resurrection, which is called ‘the redemption of the body’ [verse 23]
so these two concepts work together. The fact that the believer is ‘training
his mortal body’ for God [thru obedience] is sort of a precursor to the
resurrection! Now, some believers confuse the resurrection of the body and the
work of regeneration in ‘making you alive’ [Ephesians 2]. The work of
regeneration brings your dead spirit back to life [born again] when you believe
[which is a Divine imputation of faith at the moment of conversion, a sovereign
act]. This ‘coming alive’ is purely spiritual. This qualifies you for the
future physical resurrection of the body [Ephesians calls this the ‘down
payment’, the ‘earnest of our inheritance, until the redemption of the
purchased possession’. The word ‘earnest’ here is used in the same way as
‘earnest money’ in a real estate transaction. The fact that we have been
‘sealed’ with the Holy Spirit is our ‘guarantee of future bodily
resurrection’]. Bishop N.T. Wright, the bishop of Durham [the church of
England- Durham is the 3rd most influential post in the Church of
England. Canterbury is at the top] has recently written on the truths of the
resurrection of the body. He is an excellent scholar, way way above my league.
He has been instrumental in ‘re introducing’ the reality of Christ’s resurrection
as well as our future resurrection as a very real Christian belief [and
historic truth as well]. I have read some of Wrights stuff and am a little
surprised at some of the ideas on ‘soul sleep’ and the immortality of the soul.
Bishop Wright seems to side with some of the ideas that certain restorationist
groups [7th day Adventists] espouse, that the Catholic Church kind
of corrupted the ideas of heaven and the soul by being overly influenced by
Greek thought. While it is possible for Bishop Wright to have come to his
understanding entirely thru scripture and history, yet I felt it a little
strange to see him make these arguments. For the most part I like brother
Wright and totally agree with his stance on the future ‘new heavens and new
earth’ as the final place of rest [as opposed to dying and going to heaven now,
which is a temporary place] but there is the biblical reality of a present
‘heaven’ and this doesn’t only come from Greek thought. I have often used the
Christian doctrine of the new heavens and new earth while speaking with the
Jehovah’s witnesses, I always agree on the reality of a future kingdom on
earth. I simply steer the conversation back to ‘who qualifies for it’ and get
straight to the gospel. Well anyway we have a promise of a future resurrection,
and also a ‘quickening of the body now’ [God actually using our physical life
to glorify him]. These are both great truths!
(841)ROMANS 8: 14-18 ‘For as many
as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the Sons of God’. Many of us are
familiar with this verse [I hope!]. We often see it as saying ‘Gods direction
in our lives is proof that we are Christians’ true enough. But in context
‘being led by Gods Spirit’ means living the new life thru Christ. The putting
to death of the old man and being ‘made alive’ thru Christ is what this is
saying. Paul agrees with John [1st John] ‘those that do what is
right [led by the Spirit] are of God’. Paul says ‘we have received the Spirit
and a natural result of this is crying “Abba, Father”. I don’t want to do too
much here, but Paul sees the ‘confession’ and heart cry of the believer as
proof, a result of being ‘a habitation of the Spirit’. A sign, if you will, of
being born of God is confessing/ praying to the Father. Paul quoted David in
chapter 4 ‘for this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when
thou mayest be found’ [Psalms 32- actually Paul quotes a different section from
the Psalm, but this theme is consistent with Paul’s view]. Paul knew the
reality of ‘the godly calling upon God’ they have an inner cry of ‘Abba,
father’. ‘We are heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ’. For many years this
has been a popular verse among many believers, often times it is used to say
‘God owns the cattle on a thousand hills’ [which he does] therefore if we are
heirs ‘give me some cattle’! [stuff]. Here Paul uses this term in speaking of
our identification with Christ’s sufferings. ‘If we suffer with him, we too
shall share [joint heir!] in his glory’ [future glorification at the
resurrection- we shall see him and be changed in a moment, at the twinkling of
an eye. This mortal shall put on immortality]. It’s a symptom of modern
American Christianity to view all these scriptures thru a materialistic lens,
Paul held to the promise of a future reward [at the resurrection] that enabled
him to go thru great difficulty and suffering in this present life. He counted
the suffering as a privilege that he shared with Christ.
(843)ROMANS 8: 19-25 ‘the
sufferings of this present time [are you ‘presently’ suffering?] are not worthy
to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us’. Paul compares the
difficulty to the reward. The reward here is the future resurrection. Paul did
not see suffering as ‘from the devil’ or the reward as something material [monetary
stuff! The resurrection body will be ‘material’ - real]. Paul teaches that the
whole creation is waiting for this day. Not only will we get a ‘makeover’ but
there will be a new heaven and a new earth! The creation itself longs for this
[almost as much as Al Gore!] This resurrection is called ‘the redemption of our
body’. The next verse says ‘we are saved by hope’. John also says [1st John]
that the future reality of the resurrection ‘causes us to be pure in this life’
[every one that has this hope in him purifies himself, even as he is pure].
Why? Because we know God has a purpose for our bodies as well as our spirits!
The ‘getting saved by hope’ simply means the future hope of the resurrection
‘encourages’ us to live clean now. Once again ‘saved’ is a neutral term. In can
apply to all sorts of things. I always found it funny how when you read certain
commentaries, that you see the difficulty Christians have when coming across
these types of verses. There’s a verse that says ‘the woman will be saved thru
childbearing’ geez, you wouldn’t believe the difficulty some writers have when
they come across this stuff. Some teach ‘she will be ‘saved’ thru the birth of
a child [Jesus]’ and all sorts of stuff. I think if we simply changed the word
‘saved’ for ‘delivered’ [which are basically the same thing] that maybe this
would help. But thank God that we have a future resurrection to look forward
to, let this truth ‘deliver’ you from the temptation to think ‘what’s all this
suffering worth, why even go thru it?’ Because we have a great promise at the
other end!
(845)ROMANS 8:26-28 ‘Likewise the
Spirit also helpeth our infirmities’ why does Paul say ‘likewise’? He is saying
‘not only does the future hope of the resurrection sustain us, but also Gods
Spirit helps us’! He knows how to make intercession for us in ways that we
cannot. I just finished an hour prayer time, not an ‘official’ intercession
time [which I do a few times a week now]. But an ‘unofficial’ time where I try
and hear what the Spirit is speaking. When you are ‘praying in the Spirit’
[which can include the charismatic expression of tongues] you are depending
upon the Spirit to transcend your limited ability to articulate what needs to
be said. ‘All things work together for good to them that love God, to them who
are ‘the called’ according to his purpose’. A very famous verse indeed. What
does it mean? It means what it says! Over the years I have heard so many
excuses for trying to get around difficult things. Why do the righteous suffer?
Some taught it was because of their ignorance of scripture. Why did the things
that happened to Job happen? Some said it was because he ‘feared’ that the
things would happen [this group seems to miss the whole underlying reason for
the book. Job’s friends are continually looking for a reason thru out the book.
The point is, sometimes there is no reasonable explanation. I realize you can
pick apart certain statements from Job and come up with ‘reasons’, but the
meaning of the book is God is sovereign and we shouldn’t always think we can
figure him out or ‘work the system’]. Here Paul says ‘whatever is happening to
you right now [even very bad stuff!] will eventually work out for you benefit’.
What about Hitler? Did he love God? I don’t believe so. This scripture says ‘to
them that love God’. Your only responsibility thru the difficulty is to ‘love
God’.
(846)ROMANS 8:29-30 ‘for whom he
did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed into the image of his
Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did
predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified:
whom he justified, them he also glorified’. Let’s talk a little. When I first
became a Christian I began a lifelong study of scripture, where I continually
read a certain amount of scripture every day for many years. Over the years I
have varied on how fast I should read [that is how many chapters per day and so
forth]. But during the early stages I always took these verses to teach
predestination in the classical sense. Simply put, that God ‘pre chose’ me [and
all whom come to him] before we ‘chose him’. The Fundamental Baptist church I
began to attend [a great church with great people!] taught that ‘classic
Calvinism’ [predestination] was false doctrine, and they labeled it ‘Hyper
Calvinism’. I simply accepted this as fact. But I never forgot the early
understanding that I first gleaned thru my own study. I also was very limited
in my other readings outside of the scripture. I did study the Great awakenings
and Charles Finney. I read some biographies on John Wesley and other great men
of God. These men were not Calvinistic in their doctrine [which is fine], as a
matter of fact Wesley would eventually disassociate from George Whitefield over
this issue. Whitefield was a staunch Calvinist! Over time I came to believe the
doctrine again, simply as I focused on the scriptures that teach it. Eventually
I picked up some books on church history and realized that Calvinism was [and
is] a mainstream belief among many great believers. I personally believe that
most of the great theologians in history have accepted this doctrine. Now, for
those who reject it, they honestly struggle with these portions of scripture.
Just like there are portions of scripture that Calvinists struggle with. To
deny this is to be less than honest. The Arminians [Those who deny classic
predestination- the term comes from Jacob Arminias, a Calvinist who was writing
and studying on the ‘errors’ of ‘arminianism’ and came to embrace the doctrine
of free will/choice] usually approach the verses that say ‘he predestined us’
by teaching that Gods predestination speaks only of his foreknowledge of those
who would choose him. This is an honest effort to come to terms with the
doctrine. To be ‘more honest’ I think this doesn’t adequately deal with the
issue. In the above text, as well as many other places in scripture, the idea
of ‘Gods foreknowledge and pre choosing’ speak specifically about Gods choice
to save us, as opposed to him simply knowing that we would ‘choose right’. The
texts that teach predestination teach it in this context. Now the passage above
does say ‘those whom he foreknew, he also did predestinate to be conformed into
the image of Christ’ here this passage actually does say ‘God predestinated us
to be like his Son’. If you left the ‘foreknowledge’ part out, you could read
this passage in an Arminian way. But we do have the ‘foreknowledge’ part. So I
believe Paul is saying ‘God chose us before we were born, he ‘knew’ ahead of
time that he would bring us into his Kingdom. Those whom he foreknew he also
predestinated to become like his Son.’ Why? So his Son would be the firstborn
among many. God wanted a whole new race of ‘children of God’. Those he
predestinated he ‘called’. He drew them to himself. Jesus said ‘all that the
Father give to me will come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in no way
cast out’. Those who ‘come’ are justified, those who are justified are [present
tense] glorified. Gods design and sovereignty speak of it as a ‘finished task’
like it already happened. God lives outside of the dimension of time. I believe
in the doctrine of predestination. Many others do as well. You don’t have to
believe it if you don’t want to, but I believe scripture teaches it.
(847)ROMANS 8: 31-39 ‘What shall
we say then to these things? [what things? The fact that God predestined us and
has guaranteed completion of the purpose he has designed us for!] If God be for
us, who can be against us?’ Paul teaches that Christ is the only one with the
‘right’ or authority to pass judgment. If the only person in existence who can
‘officially’ condemn and pass legal judgment has actually died for us for the
purpose of ‘freeing us from a state of condemnation’, then who ‘gives a rip’
about others opinions and views of us? Most of us struggle with how others view
us. Paul did teach that Elders should have good character and a fine reputation
in the community. But there is another type of ‘persona’ that preachers can
fall into. A sort of ‘concern’ about what the critics are saying. In this
context Paul says ‘If the opinion of the only person in existence whose opinion
really matters, is one of “I accept you unconditionally, I declare you free
from what others think, you are my beloved son in whom I am well pleased. Ever
since I have known you, you have been pleasing in my sight” [all true
scriptures by the way] Then who cares what others think! Paul also teaches that
nothing can separate us from Christ’s love ‘not tribulation or distress or
famine or persecution’ IN all these things we are more than conquerors thru him
who loved us. Most times we view this passage from a ‘Calvinistic’ lens. I want
you to see the impact of this statement thru a different lens. In the American
church we have taught people ‘would a good father not pay the bills of his
kids? Would a good father allow his kids to suffer? If you were really
partaking of the New Covenant you would have it made’. While I do realize that
many well meaning ministers have taught these viewpoints with honest and sincere
hearts, I also have seen how this mindset accuses the saints. It basically
tells the struggling believer ‘what kind of father do you have? If he really
loved you would you be going thru these things’? In essence we are saying
‘tribulation and distress and persecution’ are all signs that ‘you have been
separated from Gods love’! Paul blows this false [materialistic] mindset out of
the water. He says it is thru these things that we are more than conquerors. It
is the ability to look into the face of Pontius Pilate and say ‘you have no
power over me, my father has permitted these things to take place. I am here to
lay my life down for his glory’. Paul said all these things we are suffering
are opportunities to glorify our father. To look into the face of society and
say ‘nay, we are more than conqueror's thru him that loved us’. The early
church set the world on fire when they were laying their lives down for the
cause, refusing to deny their Lord even at the point of death. They were ‘more
than conquerors’.
(848)ROMANS 9: 1-8 Paul returns
to an earlier theme ‘Christ came, as pertaining to the flesh, in response to
the covenants that God made with Israel ’ [my paraphrase!] Paul says
that natural Israel played a very important role in the coming of Messiah. He
was [is] the fulfillment of the prophecies that came as a result of Gods
interaction with ‘the commonwealth of Israel’. Now Paul again says ‘they are
not all Israel ,
which are of Israel ,
but “in Isaac shall thy seed be called’”. Understand something here, Paul is
not teaching ‘another’ natural lineage to Christ. The mistake of the worldwide church of God [Herbert Armstrong] which teaches
British Israelism, trying to trace the natural lineage of Europeans and saying
‘these are the lost tribes’. Paul is simply saying ‘those who are of the Law,
the natural tribe of Israel [Jews] are not automatically counted as ‘the seed’
[children] but those who ‘are of promise’. Paul also uses this in Galatians 3
and 4. ‘Of promise’ is simply saying ‘those who have been born of Gods Spirit
[Jew or Gentile] are the children that God promised to Abraham’ he is the
father of ‘many nations’. All who would believe. These themes are building upon
Paul’s earlier theology in this letter. This letter [Romans] has a little more
‘weight’ than say a pastoral epistle [Timothy, Titus]. Now, I am not saying it
is ‘more inspired’ but I want you to see that even in the book of Acts you see
Paul place special emphasis on ‘I must make it to Rome’! Paul fully realizes
that this letter will be read among the believers and Jews at Rome. Rome is the
capitol city of the Empire. He wants the early believers to understand the role
and purpose of God for Israel. Paul’s efforts are being seen by some Jewish
believers [Jerusalem] as antagonistic. Paul wants to make it clear that he was
not trying to start some type of movement that rejected natural Israel. At the
same time he wants natural Israel ‘my kinsman according to the flesh’ to
receive their Messiah! So in this context Romans is a theological treatise
saying ‘God wants to bring both Jew and Gentile together as one new man in
Christ [Ephesians]’. When he argues ‘they that are the children of the flesh
ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF GOD[verse 8] but the children of the promise are
counted for the seed’ he is simply saying ‘all people, both Jews and Gentiles
[which includes all races that are ‘non Jews’ even Arabs!] can partake of this
free gift by grace’. The promise is to all who ‘will believe’.
(849)ROMANS 9:9-23 now we get into
predestination. Paul uses the example of Jacob and Esau [I spoke on this in the
Genesis study, see chapter 25], he says God chose Jacob over Esau before they
were born. He also uses the story of Pharaoh and says God was the one who
hardened his heart. Paul says these things show us that God’s mercy and choice
are a sovereign act. He specifically says ‘God chose Jacob, not on the basis of
any thing he did [or would do!] but because of his own sovereign choice’. Now,
this is another one of those arguments where Paul says ‘you will then say to
me, how can God find fault? If everyone is simply doing the things he
preordained, fulfilling destiny, then how can God justly hold people
accountable’? First, I want you to see that this statement, that Paul is
putting into the mouths of his opponents, only makes sense from the classic
position of predestination. Second, if predestination only spoke of Gods
foreknowledge of the choices that people were going to make [like asking Jesus into
their heart!] then the obvious response to the argument would be ‘Oh, God chose
Jacob because he knew what a good boy he was going to be’. Not only would this
be wrong, Jacob [the supplanter] was not a ‘good boy’, but Paul does not use
this defense in arguing his case. He simply says ‘who are we to question God?
Can the thing formed say to him that formed it “why have you made me like
this”? It seems as if Paul’s understanding of predestination was in the
Augustinian/Calvinistic Tradition. A few years back a popular author on the
west coast, Dave Hunt, wrote a book called ‘what kind of love is this’? He took
on the Reformed Faiths understanding of predestination. Dave was a little out
of his league in the book. He seemed to not fully grasp the historic understanding
of the doctrine. He quoted some stuff from Charles Spurgeon that made it sound
like he was not a believer in predestination. Spurgeon did make strong
statements against certain ideas that were [are] prevalent in classic
Calvinism. Some taught that Christ’s Blood was shed only for the elect. This is
called ‘particular redemption’ or from the famous ‘Tulip’ example ‘limited
atonement’. Spurgeon did not embrace the idea that Christ’s Blood was not
sufficient to cover the sins of the whole world. The problem with Hunt using
this true example from Spurgeon, is that he overlooked the other obvious
statements from Spurgeon that place him squarely in the Calvinistic camp. Some
refer to this as ‘4 point Calvinism’. I myself agree with Spurgeon on this point.
The reason I mention this whole thing is to show you that major Christian
figures have dealt with these texts and have struggled with the obvious
difficulties involved. I think Paul does a little ‘speculative theology’
himself in this chapter. He says ‘what if God willing to show his mercy and
wrath permitted certain things’. He gives possible reasons for the seeming
‘unfairness’ of this doctrine. The point I want to stress is Paul never tries
to defend it from the classic Arminian understanding, that says ‘God knew the
way people were going to choose, and he simply ‘foreordained’ those who would
choose right’. To be honest, this argument does answer the question in the
minds of many believers, I simply don’t see it to be accurate.
(851)ROMANS 9:24-29 Paul quotes
Hosea and Isaiah to show that God has a purpose for both Jew and Gentile. He
uses a few verses from Isaiah 10 and 13 to say ‘except the lord had left us a
remnant, no one would be left’. Now, once again we come up against the mindset
of always reading ‘saved’ as meaning ‘born again’. In context, God ‘saving’ a
remnant simply means ‘he spared them from ruin and total destruction’. There is
a verse in Revelation that says ‘the nations of them which are saved shall
enjoy the new heavens and earth’. Some commentators will show you how some
versions leave out ‘which are saved’ which would leave the text as saying ‘the
nations [that are left, remain!] shall walk in it’. This is the context here.
Paul is saying God always had a few from Israel that remained, he didn’t
utterly wipe them out. Now, this of course fits in with ‘having sins forgiven’,
being ‘saved’ or redeemed. There are prophets who say ‘the Lord will turn away
ungodliness from Jacob’ [delivered from sin] and ‘the lord comes to those who
have turned away from their sin’ speaking of Israel . So I want you to grasp the
biblical concept of God saving [sparing] a remnant. The word ‘remnant’ actually
speaks of the part of cloth/ material that is ‘left over’ from the whole piece.
Jesus also said ‘unless those days were shortened, their would no flesh “be
saved”’. Once again meaning ‘no human would survive unless God cut short his
wrath’. Paul also uses this language here ‘the lord will do a quick work on the
earth and cut it short [shortened!] in righteousness’.
(853)ROMANS 9: 30-33 ‘What shall
we say then? That the Gentiles which followed not after the law of
righteousness have attained it, even by faith’.
Paul concludes the chapter by summing up his ‘righteousness by faith’
argument. Natural Israel, who sought to become righteous by law, who were
always striving for perfection thru the keeping of the law. They did not attain
that which they sought after. Why? Because they sought it ‘not by faith, but by
law’. No law could ever make a man righteous. The Gentiles, which were not even
looking! They got it. Why? Because they simply believed in the Messiah, it was
the best message they ever heard. They were told their whole lives ‘you are
separated from Gods promises. You are not included in the commonwealth of
Israel’. They never dreamed that the Jewish Messiah would say ‘neither do I
condemn thee, go and sin no more’. They received Gods righteousness by faith.
Israel ‘stumbled’ at the stumbling stone. Jesus is called a precious stone and
also a rock of offence. To those who believe, he is great, precious. To those
who don’t believe he is this tremendous obstacle. The unbelieving world doesn’t
know what to do with him. I was watching Ravi Zacharias the other night. He is
a good Christian apologist. He was telling the story of being in Russia and
speaking to a large group of Atheists. During his talk they were really
aggressive, making motions with their hands and all. He was told ahead of time
to be prepared. At the question and answer time a Russian Atheist asked ‘what
are you talking about when you say God? I have no idea what you mean by this
false concept’. Ravi asked him ‘sir, are you an Atheist?’ He replied yes. ‘What
is an Atheist’? Ravi asked. The man responded ‘someone who denies God’. Ravi
said ‘what exactly is it that you are denying’? The unbeliever has come up
against this ‘rock of offence’. He tries to get around it, to develop all types
of systems and philosophies to deny it. The rock is there, you can either ‘fall
on it’. That is admit he is who he claims to be. Submit and be ‘broken’. Or it
will eventually ‘grind you to powder’. You will pass from the scene and the
next crop of Atheists will rise and face the same dilemma. This rock ‘aint
going away’.
(854)ROMANS 10: 1-13 Many years
ago I referenced all the back up scriptures for this chapter [and book!]. The
study was intense because I saw a fundamental ‘fault line’ that ran thru many
in the Evangelical church [the revivalist tradition]. The ‘fault line’ was
reading this chapter as in if it were saying ‘ask Jesus into your heart, or you
won’t be saved’. Now, I have no problem with those who trace their conversion
to an experience like this. But I want to give you my understanding of this
chapter, based on the exhaustive study I did years ago. Also, I will probably
quote some verses and you will have to find them later [I forget where they all
are]. Paul begins with his desire for ‘all Israel to be saved’. I taught in
chapter one how come the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Because all
who believe ‘become righteous’. After 9 chapters of Romans, we have seen that
when Paul refers to ‘justification by faith’ this is synonymous with ‘believing
with the heart unto righteousness’. Here Paul’s desire is for Israel to
experience ‘all facets of salvation’ [present and future] to ‘be saved’. Now,
he will say ‘Christ is the end of the law to all who believe’ Israel did not
attain unto ‘righteousness’ because they sought after it by trying to keep the
law. But it comes only by faith. Then Paul quotes a kind of obscure verse from
Deuteronomy saying ‘Moses says the righteousness which is by faith’ [note- this
whole description that follows is describing ‘the righteousness that comes by
faith’] and says ‘the word is near thee, in thy mouth and heart’. Paul then
says ‘whoever calls on the Lord will be saved, with the heart a man believes
and becomes righteous [which according to Paul means ‘justified’] and with the
mouth confession is made unto salvation’. In this text, Paul once again is
‘dividing’ the common understanding of ‘salvation’ meaning ‘getting initially
saved’- which is ‘believing and being justified’. And simply saying ‘believers
will inevitably call and be saved’ [in a generic sense]. Why would he do this?
In the context of his argument, he is simply showing the ‘righteousness which
is from the law’ [the man under the law is described as ‘doing something’
continuing under the load and strain of law] versus the ‘righteousness which is
by faith’ [described as a person who believes and speaks, as opposed to ‘does
stuff’]. It is not inconsistent for Paul to use the term ‘confessing and being
saved’ as speaking of something different than meaning ‘accepting Christ into
your heart’. Paul is simply giving a description of those who believe ‘all who believe
will call’. And yes, they will and do experience ‘salvation’. It’s just in this
example Paul is not saying ‘they are saved initially upon confession, calling’.
At least not ‘saved’ in the sense of ‘getting justified by faith’. Why? Because
the rest of the chapter doesn’t make a whole lotta sense if he were saying
this. ‘How can they call on him in whom they have not believed’? He already
showed us that ‘believers are justified’. The very argument Paul makes
distinguishes between ‘believing unto righteousness, and calling unto
salvation’. You can see it like this, there is a verse I stumbled across years
ago. It is in one of the prophets [Old Testament] and it says ‘Gods wrath will
come upon all them WHO HAVE NOT CALLED UPON HIM’. In this context Paul can be
saying ‘whoever calls upon God will never enter judgment/wrath’ [a description
of a particular lifestyle, remember Paul said Gods Spirit makes us cry ‘Abba
Father’] in this light Paul can be saying ‘all who call [both Jew and Gentile-
simply making an argument for inclusion. God accepts ‘all who call’] will not
come under future [or present!] wrath’. This would be in keeping with Peters
scathing sermon in Act’s where he quotes the Prophet Joel and says ‘whosoever
calls upon the Lord shall be saved’. If you go back and read Joel you will see
that in context he is saying ‘at the future time of God’s revealed judgment,
those who cry for deliverance will be spared’. Peter quotes it in this context
as well. He shows Gods future time of judgment and ends with ‘all who call will
be saved’. How do we know that Peter was not quoting Joel for some type of
‘sinner’s prayer’ thing? Because after the Jews say ‘what should we do’? He
doesn’t lead them in a sinners Prayer! I don’t want to be picky, I simply want
you to see context. Paul has already established multiple times thru out this
letter how righteousness comes to those who believe. One of the descriptions of
‘those who believe’ are they ‘call upon God’. They even call upon God ‘to save
them’. In this chapter the reason Paul uses ‘whosoever calls upon the lord will
be saved’ is to simply show God will deliver both Jews and Gentiles. His
promise of salvation is ‘to all’. When he uses ‘believing and being made
righteous’ along with ‘calling and being saved’ he obviously can not be
speaking about the same thing! He even states it this way in his argument. ‘How
can they call unless they already believe’? He was simply giving a description
of ‘those who believe’. This ‘calling for salvation’ that ‘all who believe’ partake
of can speak both of a ‘present tense’ being saved, that is from any and all
types of bad things, and a ‘future tense’ deliverance from wrath. Even when
Paul quoted David in Roman’s 4, he is ‘describing the blessedness of the man
unto whom God will not impute sin’ [Psalms 32] if you go back and read that
psalm David says ‘for this shall EVERY ONE THAT IS GODLY PRAY UNTO THEE’. David
uses this in the context of his confession of his sin. So the ‘everyone that is
Godly’ describes ‘the righteous’ and they WILL CALL! Also in 2nd
Corinthians Paul quotes Isaiah ‘now is the acceptable time, now is the day of
salvation’ in the context of ‘God heard you and saved you’. Why would Paul use
this in 2nd Corinthians? They need not be told ‘pray and get saved’. In context
he used it to encourage them to return back into full communion and fellowship
after their restoration and reproof he gave them in the first letter. He is
saying ‘I rebuked you guys harshly, you repented and asked for forgiveness. God
‘heard you’ in his acceptable time, now get over it and ‘be restored’.
Salvation to them came by ‘calling’ but it was not describing an initial
conversion experience. Well, I didn’t realize I would go so long, but this is a
good example of having a ‘holistic view’ of scripture. You try and take all the
quotes the writers are using, put them in context of the broad themes of
scripture. Add that to the immediate context of the letter [Romans] and then
come to a deeper understanding of truth. I am not against those who see this
chapter thru an evangelistic lens, I just think the way I taught it is more
faithful to the text. [NOTE- Thru out this site I have taught the doctrine of
‘the salvation of the righteous’. I mentioned it earlier in Romans and have
spoken on it before. If you can find these entries they will add some insight
to this chapter. NOTE- verse 20 actually has Paul quoting Isaiah ‘I was found
by them who did not ask for me’. This would sure seem strange to say in the
same chapter that taught a concept of ‘all who ask for me will enter the
kingdom’. It is quite possible to ask and pray and confess everything ‘just
right’ and still not find him. And according to this verse, the ones who did
‘find him’ [Gentiles] did not ask! After years of coming to the above understanding
I read a church council [Council of Orange?] and I was surprised to see how
they actually dealt with the issue of believing versus ‘calling upon God’. They
quoted some of these texts to show that before a person could call upon the
Lord, he first needed faith. They used this example to show Gods sovereignty in
salvation. I though it interesting that they came to the very same conclusions
that I did. They even used the same examples! This shows you how the corporate
mind of the church is manifestly expressed thru out the ages. I think the
council was in the 8th or 9th century?
(855)ROMANS 10:14-21 [Just a note
for the previous entry. In the conversions recorded in scripture [Acts] do you
know how many times there is a reference to ‘calling upon the Lord’ during the
conversion? Surprisingly one time. The conversion of Saul [Paul]! During one of
the ‘re-tellings’ of his own story he says ‘I was told to arise, and be
baptized. Washing away my sins while calling upon the Lord’. Wow, could we have
arguments over this one! Do you identify the ‘washing away of sins’ with
baptism or the ‘prayer’? I actually previously taught [somewhere on this long
blog!] how in the 1st century Jewish mindset ‘washing from
uncleanness’ and water were related. I taught it in a way that did not teach
‘baptismal regeneration’ but more along the lines of ‘discipleship’ you might
find the entry under ‘my statement of faith’. The point I want to make here is
Paul spent 3 days after the Lord appeared to him before he actually got baptized
and made an open confession of faith. Paul’s reputation was so bad [he killed
Christians!] that his conversion and confession needed to have all the weight
possible. Others needed to know that he now ‘confessed Christ’. Most
commentators will look to the appearance of Jesus to Paul on the Damascus road as his
conversion. The point I want to make is in the book of Acts, the main ‘altar
call’ was actually baptism. This was the normal means to identify with the
believing community. We also see the fact that once people believed, they then
were baptized. The same distinction can be made with ‘confessing’. Neither can
take place until one believes. I would assume that Paul said something like
this at his baptism ‘O Jesus, please forgive me for what I have done. I killed
your people and have committed a terrible crime’. There obviously were some
serious things he needed to confess! But the overall view of conversion in Acts
does not show a ‘sinner’s prayer’ type conversion.] Paul indicts Israel ‘The
word did come to you, you didn’t believe’. He also quotes Moses ‘God said he
would provoke you to jealousy by a nation who were “no people”’. We are
beginning a portion of Romans where Paul will try and explain the dynamic of
Gods purpose for Israel, and his ‘use’ of the Gentile nations to ‘make them
jealous’. When we studied the parables we saw this dynamic at work. Israel was
offended that God [Messiah] was offering equal access to the promises of Israel thru
Jesus. Israel
was jealous of this free grace. Paul shows them that Moses prophesied that this
day would come. You also see this in Stephens sermon in Acts chapter 7 ‘Moses
said the Lord would raise up a prophet like me [Jesus!]’ and then Stephen shows
how Israel
also did not recognize that Moses was the intended deliverer of the people. So
likewise 1st century Israel
also did not recognize their Messiah [the first time around!]. God’s acceptance
of the Gentiles was difficult for Israel to embrace. It took a divine
vision for Peter, and he still ‘fell back’ into a caste system mentality. God
is not finished with these dealings [Paul will say in the next few chapters]
and he will make every effort to show both Jews and Gentiles that they are both
important pieces to this ‘divine puzzle’. He will even warn the Gentiles ‘don’t
get proud, if God cut off the true branches to graft you in, watch out! He
might do the same with you.’ Paul is striving for both Jew and Gentile to live
in harmony as much as possible, he did not want to come off as a defender of
the Gentiles only. He was ‘defending the gospel’.
(857)ROMANS- Let me overview a
little. This entry goes along with the last one [#856- those of you reading
this straight from the Romans study will need to find it under one of the
‘teaching’ sections]. Paul deals with the issue of ‘being provoked by/to
jealousy’. Many times believers remain divided because of pride and jealousy.
We often do not want to accept the fact that God actually is working thru other
camps, groups of Christians who are ‘not like us’. It challenges our very
identity at times! We feel like ‘well, my whole experience with God has been
one of coming out of [name the group- for many it’s Catholicism] and I KNOW
that I have found and experienced God by leaving mistaken concepts about God.
Therefore any other ‘defender’ of Catholics is challenging my core experience’.
I myself attribute my conversion to ‘leaving religious ideas’ and reading the
bible for the first time. Though I had various believers witnessing to me, it
was the actual reading of Johns gospel [and the whole New Testament] that
clinched it for me. The reality of ‘whoever believes’ as opposed to religion.
But my own experience should not limit [in my mind] the reality of others who
also embraced the Cross without ‘leaving’ their former church. It is quite
possible that other ‘Catholics’ arrived at a serious level of commitment to the
Cross, while remaining faithful to their church. Now I realize this in itself
can become an issue of contention, all I want to show you is we should not
limit the power of the gospel to our own personal experience. During the recent
controversy [2008] over certain Pentecostal expressions of ‘revival’ some old
time churches simply made a case against all the Charisms [gifts] of the
Spirit. The fact is most theologians accept the gifts of the Spirit as being
for all ages of the church. Sure, there have been problems with them, even
early on [the Montanists] but the fact is there has always been some type of
Charismatic expression of Christianity thru out the church age. But the more
Reformed brother’s sound [and are often!] more ‘biblical’ than some of the
crazy stuff that happens under the banner of ‘Pentecostal/Charismatic’. So the
divisions exist. In this chapter [Romans 11] Paul is dealing with a very real
dynamic that says ‘I find my whole identity in the way God has worked with me
for centuries [Judaism]. The fact that he began a new thing with other groups
who I detest [Gentiles] has offended me to the point where I can’t even
experience God any more’. Israel could not see past her own experience with
God. The fact that God was ‘being experienced’ by other groups in ways that
seemed highly ‘unorthodox’ did not mean that their former experience was
illegitimate. It simply meant that Gods experience with them was always
intended to ‘break out’ into the broader community of mankind. They lost this
original intent and used their ‘orthodoxy’ as a means of self identification.
An ‘elite’ religious class, if you will. I find many of these same dynamics
being present in the modern church. We should stand strong for orthodoxy, we
also need to expose and correct error when it gets to a point where many
believers are being led astray. But we also need to be able to see God at work
in other groups, we should not use our own experience with God [no matter how
legitimate it is!] as the criterion of what’s right or wrong.
(861)Romans 11:13- ‘For I speak
to you Gentiles, in as much as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify my
office’. Let me just make a few comments today. How is Paul 'exercising’ his
apostolic authority over the Gentiles in Rome? We know he hasn’t been there yet
[since becoming a follower of Jesus]. He did not have some type of relationship
with them where they contributed to him. He was holding no ‘church services’.
He exercised it by speaking into their lives and caring for their welfare. He
did this by WRITING THIS LETTER! Recently there has been some discussion on
‘Gods government’ and the apostles ‘bringing things into alignment’ [dealing
with the mistakes at Lakeland]. Lots of talk that I am familiar with. What is
Gods government? In the world we have 2 competing ‘world views’- systems or
modes of operation. You have God’s kingdom, and then the worlds system. When
the apostle John said ‘love not the world, neither the things that are in the
world’ he was referring to this system of lies and pride and sin. In Gods
kingdom you operate under his laws ‘love the Lord thy God with all thy heart…
and your neighbor as yourself’. In this family [children of God] you have
different types of ‘gifts’. Some are apostles, others prophets, etc. All these
gifted ones are given for the singular purpose of building you up so you can
have a mature faith grounded in Christ and be the ‘glorious temple’ of God in
the earth. Paul was playing his part by communicating Jesus to these Roman
Gentiles. He did not have some type of a corporate relationship with them where
he said ‘commit to my authority over you. Either I will be your ‘covering’ or
someone else!’ These are mans ideas. Now, we often say ‘Paul didn’t receive
money from the Corinthians, but he did from the other churches’. I have said
this myself. Paul did receive support from the Philippians, but that was
support for his traveling ministry. To get him to the next place. If you read
carefully you will see Paul telling the Thessalonians ‘when I was with you I
did not eat, or take stuff for free. My hands ministered to both me and those
that were with me’ I think he even said he worked night and day. When he spoke
to the Ephesians elders in the book of Acts, he also said ‘I labored when I was
with you, I did not take support from you when I was there. I did this to leave
you ELDERS an example’. Now, the point I want to make is it seems as if Paul
did not take money when he was actually living among the saints. It seems he
took it only for traveling expenses [and of course for his ministry to the poor
saints at Jerusalem]. Now, I believe and teach that it is scriptural to meet
the needs, financially, of laboring elders. The reason I mention this is to
show you that being an ‘apostle’ or any other gifted minister in the church
simply means you bear extra responsibility to bring Gods people to maturity. It
was not some type of office where you were a ‘professional minister’. When I
hear all the talk of ‘Gods apostles are bringing Gods government back into
alignment’ for the most part these are men’s ideas being applied to an American
corporate 501c3 ministry. Gods ‘government’ operates along different lines. So
in this example Paul said ‘I magnify my office’ he was simply imparting some
truth to them for the purpose of their own edification. Paul did not see them
coming under ‘his covering’.
(862)ROMANS 11- let me make a
note on the previous entry. Over the last few years, as well as many years of
experience with ‘ministry/church’, I have seen how easy it is to fall into the
well meaning mindset of ‘I am going into the ministry, this is my career
choice. My responsibility is to do ‘Christian stuff’ and the people’s role is
to support me’[ I am not taking a shot at well meaning Pastors, I am basically
speaking of the many friends I have met over the years who seemed to think
ministry was a way to get financial support]. In the previous entry I mentioned
how Paul seemed to have a mode of operation that said ‘when I am residing with
a community of believers, I refuse to allow them to support me. I will work
with my own hands to give them an example, not only to the general saints, but
also to the elders. I am showing you that leadership is not a means to get
gain’. It does seem ‘strange’ for us to see this. Of course we know Paul also
taught the churches that it was proper and right to support those who ‘labor
among you’. I have taught all this in the past and I don’t want to ‘re-teach’ it
all again. The point I want to make is we ‘in ministry’ really need to rethink
what we do. How many web-sites have I gone to that actually have icons that say
‘pay me here’. The average person going to these sites must think ‘pay you for
what’? Paul did not teach the mindset of ‘pay me here, now’. Also in this
letter to the Romans we are reading Paul’s correspondence to the believers at
Rome. He often used this mode of ‘authority’ [writing letters] to exercise his
apostolic office. Of course he also traveled to these areas [Acts] and spent
time with them. And as I just showed you he supported himself on purpose when
he was with the saints. Basically Paul is carrying out the single most
effective apostolic ministry of all time [except for Jesus] and he is doing it
without all the modern techniques of getting paid. He actually is doing all
this writing and laboring at his own expense. He told the Corinthians ‘the
fathers [apostles] spend for the children, not the children for the fathers’.
So in todays talk on ‘apostles’ being restored. God ‘bringing back into
alignment apostolic government’ we need to tone down all the quoting of verses
[even the things Paul said!] that seem to say to the average saint ‘how do you
expect us to reach the world if you do not ‘bring all the tithes into the
storehouse’! When we put this guilt trip on the people of God we are violating
very fundamental principles of scripture. Now, let’s try and finish up chapter
11. Paul is basically telling Israel and the Gentiles that God’s dealings are
beyond our understanding [last few verses]. God is using the ‘unbelief’ of
Israel as an open door to the Gentiles. He is also using the mercy that he is
showing to the Gentiles as an ‘open door’ to Israel! He will ‘provoke them to
jealousy’. There are a few difficult verses that would be unfair for me to skip
over. ‘All Israel shall be saved’. Paul uses this to show that God’s dealings
with natural Israel as a nation are not finished. Who are ‘all Israel’? Some
say ‘the Israel of God’ [the church]. I don’t think this fits the text. Some
say ‘all Israel that will be alive at the second coming’ I think this is
closer. To be honest I think this can simply mean ‘all Israel’ all those who
are alive and also raised at the return of the Lord. Now, this would be a form
of universalism [all people eventually being saved]. I am not a Universalist,
but I don’t want any ‘preconceived’ mindset [even my own!] to taint the text. I
think God has the ability to reveal himself to the whole nation of Israel in
such a way that ‘they all will be saved’. If I were a Jewish person I wouldn’t
wait for this to happen! Just like the Calvinists argument of ‘why witness’?
Because God commands it. So even though you can make an argument here for a
type of universal redemption at Christ’s revealing of himself to Israel at the
second coming [which is in keeping with this chapter, as well as other areas in
scripture; ‘they will look upon him whom they have pierced’ ‘God will pour out
the spirit of mourning and supplication on Israel at his appearing’. Which by
the way would fit in with ‘whoever calls on the Lord will be saved’ which I
taught in chapter 10. This is a futurist text implying a time of future
judgment and wrath’]. So God’s dealings with Israel are not finished. Paul also
warns the Gentiles ‘don’t boast, if God cut out the true branches [Israel] to
graft you in. He can just as quickly cut you out too’! It would be dishonest
for me [a Calvinist] to simply not comment on this. You certainly can take this
verse in an Arminian way. Or you can see Paul speaking in a ‘nationalistic
sense’. Sort of like saying ‘if Germany walks away from the faith, they will be
‘cut out’. [France would have been a better example! Speaking of the so called
‘enlightenment’ and the French Revolution]. In essence ‘you Gentiles, don’t
think “wow, look at us. God left Israel and we are now special!”’ Paul is
saying ‘you Gentiles [as a whole group] stand by faith. God could just as
quickly ‘cut you out’ and replace you with another group’. I also think the Arminians
could use this type of argument for the previous predestination chapter [9].
But to be honest I needed to give you my view. One more thing, Paul quotes
Elijah ‘lord, I am the only one left’. He uses this in context of God having a
remnant from Israel who remained faithful to the true God. God told Elijah
‘there are 7 thousand that have not bowed the knee to baal’. Paul uses this to
show that even in his day there were a remnant Of Jews [himself included] who
received the Messiah. An interesting side note. The prophetic ministry [Elijah]
seems to function at a ‘popular level’. Now, I don’t mean ‘fame’, but Elijah
was giving voice to a large undercurrent that was running thru the nation. If
you read the story of Elijah you would have never known that there were ‘7
thousand’ who never bowed the knee! Often times God will use prophetic people
to ‘give voice’ or popularize a general truth that is presently existing in the
‘underground church’ at large. Sort of like if Elijah had a web site, the 7
thousand would have been secretly reading it and saying ‘right on brother,
that’s exactly what we believe too’!
(864)ROMANS 12:1-8 ‘I beseech you by the mercies of God to
present your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and acceptable unto God, which
is your reasonable service [spiritual worship]’. Most times we see ‘by the
mercies of God’ as a recap of all that Paul has taught from chapters 1 thru 12.
This is true to a degree. I think Paul is honing in on the previous chapters
that dealt with the purpose of God specifically seen in the resurrection of the
body. As we read earlier ‘for we are saved by hope’ [the hope of the
resurrection]. Basically I see Paul saying ‘because of what I showed you
concerning Gods redemptive purpose for you body, therefore present your body
now, in anticipation of it’s future glorious purpose, as a living sacrifice
‘holy and acceptable unto God’. Why? Because you are going to have that thing
[body] forever! [in a new glorified state]
Paul exhorts us to be changed by the renewing of our mind, the way we
think. I have mentioned in the past that this renewing is not some type of
legalistic function of ‘memorizing, muttering the do’s and don’ts all day
long’. But a reorganizing of our thoughts according to this new covenant of
grace. Seeing things thru this ‘new world’ perspective. A kingdom view based
upon grace and the resurrection of Jesus. This resurrection that is assured to
us because we have the deposit of the Spirit which is our guarantee that God
will complete the work that he has begun in us. And Paul will jump into one of
his ‘Body of Christ’ analogies which he uses often to describe the people of
God. Because we are all one body, we should think soberly about our different
gifts and purposes. God gave some ‘better’ [or more noticeable] gifts for the
overall edifying of the body. So don’t boast about it. All have varying gifts,
freely given. Administrate them with much grace. Do it with humility and
cheerfulness. We are simply children thru whom Gods Spirit manifests himself in
different ways. Don’t boast that ‘Wow, daddy gave me a bike’. Or look, I got a
more expensive Christmas present than you. Daddy distributes the gifts freely
as he wills. They are for everyone’s benefit. Don’t use this grace gift as a
means of self importance or prestige. It would be like ‘prostituting’ a gift
for self aggrandizement. People have done it, but it displeases the giver of
the gift.
(865)ROMANS 12: 13 Paul continues to give some basic guidelines
on practical Christian living. Notice his teaching on financial giving
‘distribute to the necessity of the saints’. This basic Christian doctrine from
Jesus teachings has become the premier act of giving for the New Testament
saint. The reason I have stressed this teaching as opposed to the more popular view
of tithing, is because the scriptures place such a high priority on Christian
charity. As I have mentioned before, Jesus even uses this basic description to
describe those who ‘are righteous’ or ‘unrighteous’. He teaches the final
judgment will be based on this outward identifier of ‘what we did to the least
of these’. If you read carefully the New Testament epistles you will see a
picture of ‘local church’ as a caring community of people who show their love
for one another thru these acts of kindness and compassion. None of the New
Testament letters teach a type of
financial giving that focuses on ‘support the ministry/institution’ as being
‘the new testament church’ that replaced the ‘old testament temple’. For
example a tithe system that supports the ‘pastor/priest’ in the same way the
Levitical priests were supported under the law. It’s so vital for us to see and
understand this. Because the average believer is taught thru out his life that
his primary expression of giving is to ‘bring the tithe into the storehouse’ in
such a way that it violates the actual primacy of giving as taught in the New
Testament. Which is to regularly give to meet the needs of those around you.
The fact that there were instances in the book of Acts or the letter to the Corinthians
where believers gave an offering in a corporate way [the collection for the
poor saints- 1st Cor. 15, or the laying of the money at the apostles
feet in Acts] does not excuse the believer from the teaching that we should all
regularly give to meet the needs of those around us. This is flatly taught as a
regular part of the Christian experience. The other fact that Paul never once
teaches the tithe as a function of giving for the Gentile churches should cause
us all to take another look at the way we teach giving in the church today.
(866)ROMANS 12:14-21 Notice how
Paul puts such a high priority on the principles of Jesus. He exhorts the
saints to live by the precepts of the great ‘sermon on the mount’. Often times
believers try and make a division between Paul’s revelation of justification by
faith and the ‘liberal moral teachings of Jesus’. I see no division here. Paul
actually quotes Jesus ‘if you’re treated badly, respond in love. By not getting
even you heap “coals of fire on your enemies head”’. Actually, I remember how a
few years back, when everybody was coming up with their ‘new revelation
knowledge’ ideas on scripture. Things like ‘the camel going thru the eye of the
needle’. Some taught Jesus was not really rebuking wealth, he was simply talking
about a ‘low gate’ thru the wall of the city that was called the ‘eye of the
needle’ and the camels had to crouch a little to get thru, true silliness! This
verse ‘coals on the head’ was taught as saying Jesus was simply saying you were
helping your enemy on cold nights by ‘keeping his head warm’! Sad. Jesus said
don’t avenge yourselves, God will avenge you. Doesn’t sound like the lord is
talking about ‘head warmers’! Look at these verses carefully. Paul incorporates
the teachings of Christ as having a very high priority for the believer. We are
often inundated with modern concepts of ministry. How to raise funds [or amass
wealth]. Paul ‘locates’ the important thing as being centered on Christ. He
knew if the churches [believing communities] of the first few centuries would
follow this idea, that they would truly turn their world upside down for the
cause.
(867)ROMANS 13:1-6 Paul teaches
that believers should ‘be subject’ unto human government. He shows us that ‘the
powers that be are ordained of God’. All human leaders are given their position
of authority, ultimately, from God. What about Hitler? Or evil Pharaoh? Did God
‘put them there’? If God is sovereign [which he is!] then he permits all things
to transpire, that actually transpire! He does not ‘ordain evil’ in the sense
that he initiates unrighteous things. But because he has the power to prevent
anything from happening, if ‘it happens’ that a wicked ruler is in authority,
then he in that sense ‘ordained it’. Understand Paul is writing this at a time
in Roman history where the leaders were quite wicked. They worshipped false
gods, and even claimed to themselves the tile of ‘a god’. For Paul to use this
language in this chapter, he even says ‘they are the ministers [servants] of
God to thee for good’ is strong. Paul is also not teaching that there is never
a cause for civil disobedience, in the sense of ‘whatever the government says,
we will do’. In the New Testament we have Peter resisting the order to ‘not
teach or preach in Jesus name’ [Acts]. He even says ‘should we obey God or man’
in his defense. Of course today we have legalized abortion, and in the case of
later term abortions, the practice is equal to infanticide. We should do all
that is in our legal power to stop the murder of unborn children. This law
violates Gods law, from whom all human government is derived.
(868)ROMANS 13:7-14 ‘For this
cause pay your taxes also, for they are Gods ministers’ I noted earlier how
Paul taught ‘give to those around you that are in need’ [chapter 12] and here
he teaches the importance of ‘paying taxes’. Where is the exhortation to ‘pay
tithes’? In the ecclesiology of Paul, the ‘corporate community of people’ are
the ‘new testament temple of God’. Therefore you see the need to ‘pay tribute’
to only two ‘institutions’. One being the ‘local church’ [as seen in simple
giving to the needs of the community around you] and the other being ‘the
government’. Paul sees no 3rd ‘institution’ that is called ‘the
local church’ to which the tribute of the tithe belongs. To correctly apply the
verse in Malachi [if you were going to use it at all. It is obvious that the
prophet is directing the rebuke towards natural Israel] you would simply see
the ‘bring all the tithes into the storehouse’ as ‘give to meet the needs of the
community [Gods new testament storehouse] around you’. Now Paul teaches the
primacy of the law of love for the believer. If we walk in Jesus command to
love, we fulfill the law. And again Paul uses the language of ‘fluent
soteriology’ [salvation]. He says ‘now is our salvation nearer than when we
believed’. Paul comfortably jumps in and out of ‘being saved’ and ‘will be
saved’. It is this free use of the term that we need to become familiar with.
The New Testament clearly teaches a future salvation. And it is not as simple
as ‘My spirit is saved, my mind [soul- which is really a very weak translation
for soul. The soul is much more than the mind, emotions and intellect!] is
‘being saved’ and my body will be saved’. It is not his cut and dry. Your
spirit is saved, your spirit will be saved and is being saved [he ever lives to
make intercession to God for us- this ongoing intercession deals with all
aspects of the humans salvation. Not just the body!]. All 3 modes of salvation
[past, present and future] can apply to ‘all of you’ [spirit, soul and body].
Don’t think future salvation only deals with the ‘salvation of the body’.
(869)ROMANS 14:1-9 Paul discusses
Christian convictions. Things that are personal habits of discipline where the
scripture is silent on. Some believers abstain from certain types of food.
Others see certain days as ‘more special’ than the others. It’s important to
see that in this discussion Paul is not concerned with ‘who is right’. Though
he will describe the legalistic believers as ‘weak in the faith’. And he
himself will say he is convinced that ‘nothing is unclean in and of itself’. He
is speaking about the convictions mentioned above. When I first became a
believer I attended a good church. It was a Fundamental Baptist church that was
a little legalistic in these areas. I remember a funny story, some of the
brothers went on a canoe trip. We had a blast. One of the guys was wearing
these old cut off shorts that looked like ‘blue jean hot pants’ [who wears
short shorts, we wear short shorts!] the pants were old and the ‘fly’ kept
unzipping. We told the brother ‘hey James, your gonna get us arrested or
something if you can’t keep your shorts on!’. He got mad and called us a bunch
of legalists! As you can see there are times where this accusation can simply
be an excuse. But seriously the church was old fashioned [though well meaning].
I had another friend of mine that I led to the Lord and he asked ‘what’s wrong
with the Christian rock, I like it’? He had heard some songs from the group Petra
and he thought they were great. He also questioned why it was wrong for his
boys to play mixed sports in public school. He was taught that the boys and
girls wearing shorts in mixed company was wrong. So things like this are
personal convictions that believers should not use to judge others. I want to
stress that Paul does not condemn the more legalistic brothers, but he does
make it clear that this is a sign of ‘weaker faith’. A faith that looks at the
insignificant things and makes them significant. Many ‘Emergent’ church folk
[of which I am one to a degree] seem to have had this type of background. Or at
least are familiar with the classic evangelical message and preaching. Some
have found a revolution in their thinking by re-organizing their lives around
the actual lifestyle and teachings of Christ [which is a very good thing!]. But
some seem to despise the older type churches and expressions of Christianity
that they experienced while growing up. Some even cast away the good with the
bad! Though many of the more legalistic churches practiced this type of
Christianity, yet I commend them on spreading the gospel of Gods grace. Taking
seriously their faith in the Lord. And being historic defenders of the faith at
a time when the more liberal universities were throwing out the baby with the
bathwater [the 20th century fundamentalist movement].
(870)ROMANS 14: 10-23 ‘As I
live…every knee shall bow and every tongue confess’. Paul teaches that we will
all give an account of ourselves to God. He shows that one of the proofs that
‘he lives’ rides on this fact. How? The context of every one giving an account
of his life is speaking of a future judgment day. But we also see the reality
of Gods existence in the fact that most people [even atheists!] have at one time
or another ‘spoken to God’. I was listening [or reading?] a testimony of a
woman who was an atheist. Her child became critically ill and as the days went
by in the hospital she had a conversation that went like this ‘I cant pray to
God now. I would be a hypocrite. I have denied him my whole life’. The point is
she actually knew that in time of need you should pray to God. This universal
reality that most people on the planet have at one time or another ‘confessed
to God’ is proof of his existence. Paul says because of this fact that we all
will give an account to God, therefore don’t judge other people [motives]
before the time. If you have the freedom to ‘eat meat’ [less legalistic] then
by all means do so. But if this freedom causes another to stumble, then your
first priority as a Christian is to live your life in an unselfish way for the
benefit of others. So do not let your freedom become an offence to those who
have ‘weaker faith’. Do all things with the benefit of others in mind. When
Paul says ‘don’t judge your brother’ he is not saying there is never a time for
correction and reproof. Paul used very harsh language when dealing with the
Judaizers. These Jewish legalists did believe in Christ, they just mixed the
law in with the gospel. Paul rebuked them harshly [just like Jesus and the
religious leaders of his day]. But when dealing with new believers, those who
are ‘weaker in the faith’ you don’t want to overload them with too much stuff.
You want them to grow and mature in the proper time. If you used to be
legalistic [not going to movies, not eating pork, all types of stuff] and now
are more mature in your thinking [though some movies are bad and pork isn’t
real good for you!] you should not despise those who still see the practice of
their faith thru this lens. Paul said ‘he that eats, eats unto the Lord. He
that abstains does it also to the lord’. In these less important restrictions
that some believers abide by, most of the times their motives are pure. We
shouldn’t demean them. We should try to live peaceably with all men as much as
possible, we will all give an account some day.
(871)ROMANS 15:1-7 ‘we then that
are strong [more mature] ought to bear the infirmities of the weak and not
please ourselves’. In Philippians we have the ‘KENOSIS’ the act of Jesus, who
being in the form of God, thought it not something to be used for his own
advantage. He did not see his purpose in the kingdom as one of ‘let’s find out
our rights in the covenant and posses what’s rightfully ours’. A few years back
it was common to hear ‘God told me his people don’t have a problem with giving
[oh really?] but they need to learn how to receive’. While their might be a
‘speck’ of truth in this, the overall ethos of the kingdom [according to Jesus
and Paul] is ‘we are not here to please ourselves, but give up our rights and
blessings for the purpose of pleasing others’ [building them up, edifying
them]. Paul makes this statement right after the chapter on Christian
convictions. He shows us that even if we are right on a particular issue, it is
‘more right’ to not offend or put a stumbling block in our brother’s path. It
is possible to ‘be right’ in a particular doctrine or truth, and yet ‘be wrong’
in that we might have used it in a way that destroyed the purpose of God in building
others up. Many in the church [at large!] have unwittingly ‘tore down’ the poor
and oppressed by seeking ‘their own pleasure’. Many overseas countries have
been hurt by the amount of pleasure seeking doctrines that went into their
countries. Many 3rd world Pastors gave sacrificially out of their
extreme poverty to rich American ‘pleasure seekers’ and their poor people
suffered greatly when they did not get a literal 100 fold return as was
promised. Paul said ‘we that are strong ought to help the weak, and not please
ourselves’.
(872)ROMANS 15: 8-14 Paul freely
quotes from Psalms and Isaiah [the 2 most quoted Old Testament books in the New
Testament] and shows how God always had a future plan to include the Gentiles.
In the first century mindset, ‘salvation’ was seen more in a nationalistic
sense than an individual ‘me and Jesus’ type thing. The messianic promises were
for the ‘commonwealth’ of Israel. As the gospel would expand into the Gentile
nations, Peter would call us ‘a holy nation’. Still couching the purposes of
God and his kingdom in a nationalistic way [not human ‘nations’ but Gods
people]. So for Paul it is significant to show how King David [the greatest
king Israel ever had] actually prophesied [Psalms] of the future inclusion of
the Gentiles into the corporate ‘nation of God’. Also Paul says ‘you are able
to admonish one another’. A theme in Paul's writings is the ability of the
‘local believers/church’ to have within them a corporate ability for self
edification. He teaches an idea that says ‘you are all able members of Christ’s
Body, therefore build each other up’. Notice how Paul is not speaking into the
modern day concept of ‘the Pastor’ who is usually seen as the main ‘builder’.
In all of Paul’s letters he addresses the entire body to carry out the function
of the church. He tells the Corinthians ‘when you are all gathered together,
commit the unrepentant believer over to satan for the destruction of the
flesh’. He gave this very heavy charge to the church. He did not see it as
something that was to be carried out by a singular office [Bishop or Pastor].
So here we see Paul admonish the local believers to build each other up.
(873)ROMANS 15: 15-20 Paul
appeals to his apostolic authority as ‘the apostle to the Gentiles’ in defense
of his strong letter. He also says ‘I dare not use any thing that Christ has
not wrought by me to make the Gentiles obedient’. Was Paul saying he would not
speak about his past testimony and struggles with sin? I don’t think so. He
already spoke of these struggles in this letter [chapter 7]. If you keep
reading he says ‘thru mighty signs and wonders, by the power of Gods Spirit’.
If you read Galatians, Paul says ‘how did you receive the Spirit, by the works
of the law or the hearing of faith’ [P.S. for those still stuck on chapter 10
of Romans, see here how Paul saw the passive hearing as the only outward sign
of receiving the Spirit- not calling!] here Paul appeals to the Galatians and
says they received the Spirit and God wrought miracles among them [mighty signs
and wonders] thru faith. In Acts we saw how the primary purpose of the
charismatic signs and wonders was for the proclaiming of the gospel. The signs
testify of Jesus being the Messiah. So here in Romans I think Paul is simply
saying ‘I will not resort to the preaching of the law’, the main tool used by
the Judaizers to try and gain ‘obedience’ among the Gentiles in order to make
the Gentiles obedient [these are the things that Christ has not wrought by him.
They represented Paul's past experience in Judaism]. But instead he will
declare the gospel of God’s grace. He will lean on the Cross of Christ as the
functional tool to ‘bring obedience to the Gentiles’.
(874)ROMANS 15: 20-33 ‘Now I go to
Jerusalem to
minister to the saints’ ‘my service to them’. Paul tells the Romans that he is
going to ‘minister’ and have ‘service’ towards the Jerusalem saints. How would you take it if I
said ‘I am going to New York
to minister, hold a ‘service’ in the church’. You would see me as saying I was
going to preach in a building, do my best to encourage the people. And before I
left I was going to receive an offering. Paul is saying nothing of the sort!
His ‘ministry and service’ are speaking of his charitable work among the poor.
He received gifts from the churches for the sole purpose of meeting the needs
of the poor. He even says ‘if you Gentiles have been made partakers of their
blessings, you should help them out financially’. We are familiar with this
terminology when Paul uses it to speak of meeting the needs of Elders, but we
very rarely apply it to the meeting of the needs of the poor. Paul had a
‘service’ for the saints, and he was not speaking in terms of going to some
town and preaching a message and taking an offering. Service in the first
century context was giving of your time and resources for the benefit of
others. Doing things at your own expense, not always receiving a recompense
yourself. I wonder where they got such an ‘unbiblical idea’. It reminds me of
the time when Jesus put on a towel and washed the disciples feet. Another one
of those strange passages that seem to teach that leadership is here to serve,
not be served. These kingdom precepts do not fit in with the modern idea of
‘ministry/service’.
(875)ROMANS 16- Some debate the
‘canonicity’ of this chapter. They feel that all the personal greetings from
Paul are too personal. Let’s talk a little about the Canon [inspiration of the
scriptures]. First, I am a ‘bible believing Christian’ who holds to the
historic doctrine of scripture. But you do have varying views on what the
historic doctrine is. I hold to the idea that God never intended for the
letters that were written in the first century, which have become our New
Testament, to be writings that were pulled out of time. That is the writers had
to have been writing with a contextual purpose in mind. The recipients of the
letters had to have had some type of practical instructions that they could
wrap their minds around. So for John to say something to the seven churches in
Asia Minor [Revelation] it was just common sense that the actual recipients of
the letters would expect something practical for their day. This of course does
not mean there are no further applications or instructions for us today, but we
need to have a more personal understanding of the give and take between the
Apostles and the people they were writing to. So this is how I think we should
view the personal stuff in the Canon. This also needs to be understood when
interpreting scripture. I have made the argument before for the 1st
century belief in Christ’s literal second coming. I have also taught how the
early church had no concept of a Rapture that was separated from the return of
Christ. The event spoken of by Paul in Thessalonians chapter 4 is a real thing
that takes place at Christ’s return. We get ‘caught up to meet him in the air’.
Now how confusing would it be for the first century readers of Paul's letters,
to have one letter that speaks of a second coming, and another that spoke of a
rapture? It would be next to impossible to have any coherent view of scripture
if they did stuff like this. You could then make an argument for any doctrine.
There would be no coherent thinking if you were living in Thessalonica and read
a letter from Paul that used the same terminology about the return of Christ as
he used in a letter to the Corinthians. And if you relocated to Corinth and said ‘Oh,
yes. Paul wrote to us about the resurrection and return of Jesus. But when he
wrote to us he was speaking of the rapture, but when he wrote to you he was
talking about a different event called the second coming’. This type of
thinking would have been disastrous for the early church. They were all
receiving letters from Paul that contained basic truth. The fact that these
letters were not included in an entire collection [as we have today] leads us
to believe that the basic message had to stay the same in all of these letters,
or else you would have had havoc in the early church.
(876)ROMANS 16- CONCLUSION Okay, lets try and finish up Romans. We do
see some good stuff in this last chapter. We see Paul addressing women as functional ministers in the church. Phoebe is
a deaconess, Junia an apostle! I still believe that Elders were only men, but
women did function in the first century Ecclesia’s. Paul also says ‘mark those
which cause divisions contrary to the doctrine you have learned and avoid
them’. Now, I have heard the strict Baptists use this against the Pentecostals,
and it did put the fear of God in you! But then I heard the Pentecostals use it
against the strict Baptists, and it also put the fear of God in you! [maybe
another fear?] The point being you could use this to defend any doctrine you
‘have been taught’ by well meaning men. Here Paul is warning against those who
were early on departing from the faith [the basic elements of the gospel and
Gods grace]. The apostle John addresses those who ‘went out from us, but were
not of us’ ‘whoever rejects Christ as come in the flesh is anti christ’ [1st
John]. You did have those who rejected the basic elements of the gospel and the
incarnation of Jesus. Paul warned the Corinthians not to depart from the
reality of Christ's resurrection [1st Corinthians 15]. And of course
Paul openly rebuked the Judiazers for trying to put the gentile believers under
the restrictions of the Mosaic law. So even though these types of verses seem
to fit in to our present day controversies and differences among various
denominational groups, yet in context they refer to those who were rejecting
the basic tenets of the faith. Paul also encourages ‘God will crush satan under
our feet shortly’ ‘God is able to establish us thru the gospel and the
preaching of Jesus Christ’. Let me defend the concept of ‘old fashioned
preaching’ a little. While I and many others have publicly taught a type of new
testament ecclesiology that is absent the ‘weekly pulpit Pastoral office’. Yet
there is biblical precedent for the preaching of the Word. Paul taught in
chapter 10 ‘how can they hear without a preacher, and how can they preach
unless they are sent’? God strengthens believers thru the preaching of Gods
Word. While it is wrong for the average believer to depend solely on this
preaching to become educated in the things of God, yet there is a strengthening
that God gives to the believer when he comes under the pure preaching of
Christ. As we end Romans, I want to re emphasize the major doctrine of
justification by faith. The reformation of the 16th century did not
happen in a vacuum. God restored a very vital truth back to the people of God.
All Christians should be grounded and well versed in the reality of God freely
accepting us based on simple faith in Jesus Christ. Now, I realize that many
are returning to a more 'sermon on the mount’ orientation of the Christian
lifestyle. As I have taught before I think this is a good thing. A
‘re-focusing’ on the teachings and instruction of Jesus. But I think we also
need to emphasize the many statements from Jesus himself on those who believe
having everlasting life [John’s gospel]. Romans is a masterpiece letter from
Paul, one of his main points was justification by faith. God wants believers to
be grounded in this truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment